New Rugger 10-22 CLONE on the market

[screwtape]

Another new flop on our market. Useless to all but the few who leave their guns stock. Superior? Should have read inferior.

All but the few who leave their guns stock? Frankly, I suspect most shooters, past and present, who buy utility-grade .22 rifles like Ruger 10/22s, Savages, Mossbergs, Remington 597s, or their Norinco or other "clones" leave them "stock". Why? Because they buy the rifles for shooting gophers and other problem pests on their farms, for small game hunting or for casual plinking, and they fully expect that firearm they buy will be suitable for those uses "as is", "right out of the box", "straight off the shelf", "just add ammo and stir".

Frankly, I would be very surprised if the number of Ruger 10/22s and other "utility grade" .22 rifles out there that are "upgraded" with aftermarket parts was more than about 10% of the total.

Personally, I have owned my own Ruger 10/22 for about 30 years. I "upgraded" it early on by fitting it with a Williams FP receiver sight, sling swivels and a bunch of extra magazines - including an early Butler Creek 25-rounder. When I bought the gun, that was fancy customizing for a semi-auto .22. It was only recently when I began to read the .22 threads on this site that I realized a "proper" Ruger 10/22 has had everything but the receiver replaced with aftermarket parts.

How did I ever manage to hit a single gopher without having a Volquartsen trigger, Dlask barrel or Whosiwhatsis stock on my rifle? I'm so ashamed of myself...

But for thousands of Prairie countryfolk who have no shame, I expect these Ruger clones will work just fine, probably for decades, bone stock, right out of the box, just adding ammo.

 

[trebor2880]

AGAIN...a Kimber is a NOT a high end 1911 (maybe a FEW of their models area)...they are $$$, some Kimbers LOOK good but are still not great. If you cannot name names any better then someone who has looked at a Guns and Ammo magazine a few times I think your lost at what a HIGH END 1911 is.

Ed Brown, Wilson, Norinco, Les Baer, Nighthawk. I've probably forgotten more about 1911's, than you'll ever know!

 

[jeffcarr88]

No its not. Local shops sell Rugers for just under $250 after tax. These are $250 plus tax...

But Ruger suckz...I'd much rather trust a company half way around the world that is COPYING a Ruger...

Ruger is back ordered for over 1,000,000 guns folks...there IS a reason why!!!

 

[Sarge_DL]

Excellent post. Thanks for the info.

 

[screwtape]

But Ruger suckz...I'd much rather trust a company half way around the world that is COPYING a Ruger...

Ruger is back ordered for over 1,000,000 guns folks...there IS a reason why!!!

Which means that, if you want a .22 rifle to shoot the gophers in your pasture this year, you buy something other than a Ruger, especially if you aren't interested in paying a "scarcity premium" for your utility rifle ... From the sounds of it, these Ruger clones are solid little rifles that exhibit practical accuracy and decent reliability. Only time will tell how durable they are, but there's no reason to expect they will be any less durable than the thousands upon thousands of old Cooeys, Mossbergs and similar rifles still in use all around the country.

Of course, if you are looking for a rifle to customize with aftermarket parts, then it sounds like these clones are not for you.

 

[jeffcarr88]

There are still many "old" stock Ruger 10/22 at nearly every gun store. Or buy used...not all EE ads are rip offs.

 

[supernova]

Somebody has some sensitivity issues lol. Unless you haven't noticed, the rimfire forum is filled with 10/22 builds and all about the new parts out there. Very few bone stock 10/22s, and not just on CGN. My personal 10/22 is an '89 carbine with a Skinner lopro rear and brass blade front sight, otherwise stock. Every once in a while I buy a new one to build into a fun tacticool plinker, these rifles will not work for that. A 10/22 needs nothing, some just like modding their rifles and the 10/22 lends itself well to that. If you want yours basically stock like mine that's fine, no need to write an emotional excerpt on your troubles. But I guess that's about all that goes on around here nowadays huh?

All but the few who leave their guns stock? Frankly, I suspect most shooters, past and present, who buy utility-grade .22 rifles like Ruger 10/22s, Savages, Mossbergs, Remington 597s, or their Norinco or other "clones" leave them "stock". Why? Because they buy the rifles for shooting gophers and other problem pests on their farms, for small game hunting or for casual plinking, and they fully expect that firearm they buy will be suitable for those uses "as is", "right out of the box", "straight off the shelf", "just add ammo and stir".

Frankly, I would be very surprised if the number of Ruger 10/22s and other "utility grade" .22 rifles out there that are "upgraded" with aftermarket parts was more than about 10% of the total.

Personally, I have owned my own Ruger 10/22 for about 30 years. I "upgraded" it early on by fitting it with a Williams FP receiver sight, sling swivels and a bunch of extra magazines - including an early Butler Creek 25-rounder. When I bought the gun, that was fancy customizing for a semi-auto .22. It was only recently when I began to read the .22 threads on this site that I realized a "proper" Ruger 10/22 has had everything but the receiver replaced with aftermarket parts.

How did I ever manage to hit a single gopher without having a Volquartsen trigger, Dlask barrel or Whosiwhatsis stock on my rifle? I'm so ashamed of myself...

But for thousands of Prairie countryfolk who have no shame, I expect these Ruger clones will work just fine, probably for decades, bone stock, right out of the box, just adding ammo.

 

[JimDO]

All but the few who leave their guns stock? Frankly, I suspect most shooters, past and present, who buy utility-grade .22 rifles like Ruger 10/22s, Savages, Mossbergs, Remington 597s, or their Norinco or other "clones" leave them "stock". Why? Because they buy the rifles for shooting gophers and other problem pests on their farms, for small game hunting or for casual plinking, and they fully expect that firearm they buy will be suitable for those uses "as is", "right out of the box", "straight off the shelf", "just add ammo and stir".

Frankly, I would be very surprised if the number of Ruger 10/22s and other "utility grade" .22 rifles out there that are "upgraded" with aftermarket parts was more than about 10% of the total.

Personally, I have owned my own Ruger 10/22 for about 30 years. I "upgraded" it early on by fitting it with a Williams FP receiver sight, sling swivels and a bunch of extra magazines - including an early Butler Creek 25-rounder. When I bought the gun, that was fancy customizing for a semi-auto .22. It was only recently when I began to read the .22 threads on this site that I realized a "proper" Ruger 10/22 has had everything but the receiver replaced with aftermarket parts.

How did I ever manage to hit a single gopher without having a Volquartsen trigger, Dlask barrel or Whosiwhatsis stock on my rifle? I'm so ashamed of myself...

But for thousands of Prairie countryfolk who have no shame, I expect these Ruger clones will work just fine, probably for decades, bone stock, right out of the box, just adding ammo.

Seems pretty sensible to me.

 

[Hitzy]

Leaving one of these import 10/22's stock is all fine and dandy, until something breaks and Ruger or aftermarket parts don't fit.....then it's a paperweight
Still don't see any point in choosing one of these over a Ruger.

 

[jeffcarr88]

x1,000,000...

IF they were MUCH cheaper...say $100 cheaper AND either they took Ruger 10/22 guts or came with their own spares...then its not to bad but still, its still a copy.

Firing pins, extractors will and DO wear out, especially on high use, low cleaning firearms like semi .22s!!!

 

[screwtape]

x1,000,000...

IF they were MUCH cheaper...say $100 cheaper AND either they took Ruger 10/22 guts or came with their own spares...then its not to bad but still, its still a copy.

Firing pins, extractors will and DO wear out, especially on high use, low cleaning firearms like semi .22s!!!

From what has been said by the owners in this thread, aftermarket barrels made for 10/22s won't fit, because the RIA receiver is a few thousandths of an inch bigger than a Ruger. However, it sounds like the internal mechanism is identical, so replacement firing pins, extractors, springs and similar bits and bobs made for a Ruger 10/22 should work in the clones.

 

[SQUAREHEAD1]

I have three 10/22's and a Magnum Research Stainless Bull Barrel 22 magnum.
One of my Rugers is 34 years old - the other two are very recent. The three
of them are VERY reliable and equally accurate, never had any issues with them.
The Magnum Research 22 magnum is an extremely accurate rifle - 1.5" five shot
groups @ 100 metres with CCI Maxi Mags.

I would NEVER buy one of these copies even if they were 100 bucks cheaper
than the Ruger. Life's too short, why take a chance? If it's a dudd, what can
you sell it for? And anyone with a brain will figure out why there's a ton of
these for sale in a year or two, if it happens.

Yes, there's a good reason why Ruger is millions backordered!

 

[Holleyman]

My wife has decided that she likes the weight and how the new one fits her in the folder stock. It shoots an honest 1.5" - 2" at 50 yards which makes it a keeper. I guess we keep it so I have opted for a full custom build instead. Guess you can never have too many 22s.

 

[SQUAREHEAD1]

My wife has decided that she likes the weight and how the new one fits her in the folder stock. It shoots an honest 1.5" - 2" at 50 yards which makes it a keeper. I guess we keep it so I have opted for a full custom build instead. Guess you can never have too many 22s.

That's great, man! So, is it just that it's all metal that makes it 7lbs? Somebody said back a few pages it had an aluminum receiver, where is the extra couple lbs? Sounds like a solid beast..

 

[shores]

The new ones from ruger are hard to find lately, all the local shops and even basspro don't have any except ugly camouflage ones for 330
I'll take a all wood and metal copy over the plastic they are putting out any day

It still takes all the same internals, fits in the same aftermarket stocks, etc.
Most of us just want a reliable gun that goes bang when the trigger is pulled.

I have three 10/22's and a Magnum Research Stainless Bull Barrel 22 magnum.
One of my Rugers is 34 years old - the other two are very recent. The three
of them are VERY reliable and equally accurate, never had any issues with them.
The Magnum Research 22 magnum is an extremely accurate rifle - 1.5" five shot
groups @ 100 metres with CCI Maxi Mags.

I would NEVER buy one of these copies even if they were 100 bucks cheaper
than the Ruger. Life's too short, why take a chance? If it's a dudd, what can
you sell it for? And anyone with a brain will figure out why there's a ton of
these for sale in a year or two, if it happens.

Yes, there's a good reason why Ruger is millions backordered!

 

[sksscrew]

You need to "machine up" the barrels as the receiver bore is too large by 16 thou. The barrels are REALLY sloppy in there

What about fastening some kind of sleeve to increase barrel dimension?

 

[Fremen]

Is the receiver steel?

 

[buffdog]

.

An interesting thread for sure. It certainly got a lot of peoples Hormones worked up.

Being one of the "old farts", I always was of the opinion that a rifle should be judged by what it will, (or will not) do as it comes out of the box. In other words, does it do the job that it was intended to do, with the addition of SMALL improvements such as sights or a scope.

It almost seems there is a whole Aftermarket Cult out there that seems bent on "improving" the Ruger 10-22 by replacing barrels, internal parts, stocks, and almost anything they can think of or hang on the rifle. Many 10-22 owners apparently spend two or three times the original price of the rifle itself to "improve" it and get it shooting the way they want to.

I have a friend that I drive almost nuts when we go shooting. A couple of years ago, I bought a used Stainless Steel Remington 597 semi-automatic .22 rifle. It was an early production one, and came with the original all plastic magazines --you know----the ones that EVERYONE KNEW JAMMED ALL THE TIME. The only "improvements" I made to it was to substitute a Volquartsen hammer, which took the trigger pull down to a bit less than three pounds, and I free floated the barrel using sandpaper wrapped around a spark plug socket.

My friend, in order to prove the superiority of the Ruger 10-22 over my $200 Remington, has spent about $600 extra on top of the purchase price of the rifle itself. It still does not shoot as well, but it is now a lot closer to being equal than it was. If he gets it real close, then I will haul out my Serbian made bolt action Zastava Z5 rifle that cost me $275, and proceed to shoot some bughole groups at 50 yards to really frustrate him.

So now that I have angered the Ruger Gods, I will await the storm clouds, and the bus loads of people with pillow cases over their heads, and Ruger T-shirts to arrive, and burn a cross made from imported .22 rifle stocks, on my front lawn.

 

[BC_Mark]

I've seen Ruger 10/22 carbines in local gun stores for $289. For the extra $40 I'd go with the original however if its as good as the original $40 is a saving that many would take advantage of.

Thanks for taking a flyer on it.

 

[screwtape]

.

An interesting thread for sure. It certainly got a lot of peoples Hormones worked up.

Being one of the "old farts", I always was of the opinion that a rifle should be judged by what it will, (or will not) do as it comes out of the box. In other words, does it do the job that it was intended to do, with the addition of SMALL improvements such as sights or a scope.

It almost seems there is a whole Aftermarket Cult out there that seems bent on "improving" the Ruger 10-22 by replacing barrels, internal parts, stocks, and almost anything they can think of or hang on the rifle. Many 10-22 owners apparently spend two or three times the original price of the rifle itself to "improve" it and get it shooting the way they want to.

I have a friend that I drive almost nuts when we go shooting. A couple of years ago, I bought a used Stainless Steel Remington 597 semi-automatic .22 rifle. It was an early production one, and came with the original all plastic magazines --you know----the ones that EVERYONE KNEW JAMMED ALL THE TIME. The only "improvements" I made to it was to substitute a Volquartsen hammer, which took the trigger pull down to a bit less than three pounds, and I free floated the barrel using sandpaper wrapped around a spark plug socket.

My friend, in order to prove the superiority of the Ruger 10-22 over my $200 Remington, has spent about $600 extra on top of the purchase price of the rifle itself. It still does not shoot as well, but it is now a lot closer to being equal than it was. If he gets it real close, then I will haul out my Serbian made bolt action Zastava Z5 rifle that cost me $275, and proceed to shoot some bughole groups at 50 yards to really frustrate him.

So now that I have angered the Ruger Gods, I will await the storm clouds, and the bus loads of people with pillow cases over their heads, and Ruger T-shirts to arrive, and burn a cross made from imported .22 rifle stocks, on my front lawn.

I know what you mean about thinking things should be judged by how well they perform "out of the box". I also find the Aftermarket Cult almost funny, in a way. In firearms, it doesn't just apply to Ruger 10/22s but to almost all popular rifles, shotguns and pistols. And of course it doesn't just apply to firearms either: for example, Harley Davidson motocycles are absolutely notorious for this. A buyer can ride any other brand or model of new bike just as is, with maybe some bags and a windscreen added; but part of the "charm" of Harley Davidsons is that you can double the price of the bike with aftermarket engine parts before ever taking it off the dealer's lot - and almost have to if you want a bike that performs well.

Anyway, like you, I've always assumed that a commercial firearm should work right out of the box and be able to perform the job it was designed to do. I have a Ruger 10/22 that I bought in the early 1980s and heavily modified for the time: I fitted it with a Williams peepsight and then replaced the front sight with a higher post to match the greater height of the peepsight.

I never felt any need to modify the rifle beyond that as it has always worked perfectly for what it is: an SA blowback .22 utility rifle for hunting small game or varmints and for plinking. What does this mean? It means it goes bang every time I pull the trigger, and does so with enough practical accuracy to shoot gophers, magpies or marauding tin cans reliably out to about 75 yards or so. Will it put every bullet into a quarter-inch hole at 50m like an Olympic target rifle? Of course not, but if that was what I wanted, I would have bought an Olympic target rifle instead of a truck gun. I certainly wouldn't have spent $1,000+ trying to turn the truck gun into an Olympic target rifle.

When Ruger originally designed the 10/22, the aim was to produce a tough, practical rifle that would end up on the gunrack in every farm, ranch, acreage and rural pickup truck in the country. And that is precisely what the company made. The rifle was never expected to be carried onto the winner's podium at any kind of formal target competition.

The funny thing is, as far as I can tell, after people spend $600 to $1000 reworking their Ruger 10/22 truck guns to be Olympic target shooters, they mostly have rifles that are neither. They may be very accurate and a real pleasure to shoot, but a lot of cheaper but purpose-built bolt-action target rifles will still out-shoot them right out of the box, and they are now far too expensive and highly tuned to be working shooters anymore.