Should I Stop Being Such A 10-22 Fudd?

i used to hate glocks, i have an m&p, i just shot my buddies glock for maybe the third time and i shot it better than my m&p. crazy things are happening now, i want a glock and you want a ruger :eek: moral of the story, i guess peoples tastes do change :)
 
well I have one and I like it just fine cose to 3000 rounds through it before its first cleaning. breakcleaner air dry and 3000 more.
 
I dont really understand what some people have against 10/22's ?
It can be a very cheap gun if you dont dress it up, it shoots very cheap ammo and mine is very reliable.
 
Mine eats about 8-10 boxes of Federal 525 packs a year and I clean it fully every 5-10 depending on how bored I am.

I have a couple bolt action .22's. The Canadian classic Cooey model 60 and a Marlin Model 880 ducks unlimited. The Marlin is more accurate because I aim all the shots, the Ruger is just way more fun, and sure a BB that hits is better than a canon that misses, but if I pepper the %@#& out of it, I'll hit it and it's more fun. a .22 isn't going to vaporize a target like a .22/250 so it really doesn't matter if it takes one two or three to hit it.
 
DrawBlood said:
I have always had a hate on for the Ruger, as I haven't seen a good example of one.

I have seen at least 50 Ruger builds in the past few days on this site, and I was thinking-wouldn't people stop buying them if they all sucked? Why would there be so much aftermarket?

Do I need a 10-22?
Click to expand...

Well, I just stripped and cleaned a buddy's folding stock 10/22 that I had borrowed. He bought it in the late 80's and told me he had NEVER cleaned it since. After opening it up, I believe him. I didn't know it was possible to get a firearm that filthy. I had to use a pick and brass brush to clean the gunk out around the breech end of the barrel after soaking it in varsol for a while. It sure cycles smoothly now that all the garbage has been cleaned out and everything lubed properly.;)

I have previously shot this same gun and it was 100% reliable with a couple of different types of ammo, even in its filthy state. On the down side, the trigger is horrible and the stock is a tremendously flimsy POS that lets the rear of the receiver move up and down freely. Properly bedding it in a solid wood or composite stock would likely do much for the accuracy.

I have ordered one of the Marauder kits from Mystic Precision, so I too will have to let go of my hate for 10/22's and join the dark side.:D

Mark
 
mrpenguin said:
I dont really understand what some people have against 10/22's ?
It can be a very cheap gun if you dont dress it up, it shoots very cheap ammo and mine is very reliable.
Click to expand...

Basically, lots of people praise the 10/22 because of the aftermarket rather than the gun itself. An affordable gun should be measured by what you get when you buy it, not by what you can do to it later. In stock form, the 10/22 is pretty run of the mill and for $200, you can get cheaper rifles that are just as good, if not better than the 10/22. But then again, there's nothing like the fun of upgrading a gun.
 
Either way you put it I should have bought one instead of my bone stock Remington 597!

(Which is still stock for obvious reasons)
 
mrpenguin said:
I dont really understand what some people have against 10/22's ?
It can be a very cheap gun if you dont dress it up, it shoots very cheap ammo and mine is very reliable.
Click to expand...

I know there are many things that can rightfully be said about the 10/22 from a positive perspective. Here are my negatives.

Why do you have to screw a scope rail onto the top of the receiver before you can mount a Red Dot or telescopic sight? Because the receiver is soft alluminum metal alloy. The receiver is the heart of the firearm. I don't know of any other rimfire where you have to do this.

The iron sights are only marginally adequate for accuracy. Blade front sights are much better. The 10/22 will often be fired at the same gun / target distance as a handgun. Seen any handguns with a post and bead front sight?

I have never seen a standard wood model 10/22 that sat well in its originalk wooden stock. In the US at the Patriot Rifle events they tell you right up front to consider using a 10/22 but bring tools to fix the gun after it shoots loose after a couple of hundred rounds.

The new rigger assemblies are plastic, no longer metal. Only time will tell how this impacts things.
 
No need to call yourself a fudd because you don`t own a 10-22. :p They are great rifles for the price and the intended use. Trigger can use a little work otherwise really no need to go wild on aftermarket parts unless the tactifool bug hits you on the butt. Now let the flaming begin.:rolleyes:
 
I used to not appreciate them because of their price. I then got two brand new for $400. Gave one as a Christmas present and ordered a barrel and stock for the second. We'll see how it goes. They both shoot surprisingly well.
 
I've never been impressed with them. I have about a dozen friends with 10/22's - we even had a 10/22 workshop a few years back - trigger jobs, polishing internals, bolt radiusing, bolt release mods, etc.

I find it takes about $700 and 20 hours worth of work to get them to perform to a level I would consider to be 'acceptable,' but not outstanding. Include the price of the original and you're at $1k. For that kind of money, there are much better 22's out there. My buckmark carbine, for example - they go for about $600 new, shoot circles around the 10/22 - even my heavily modified and upgraded 10/22
 
Greyghost, I agree with you on the down falls.

If you look at every other long gun in Ruger's line up they have built in bases for there excellent scope rings.....Why on earth did they not work that into the 10/22 design is beyond me????

The factory sights, especially the rear one are very substand IMHO.

I have been shooting the same 10/22 Deluxe (checkered walnut with no barrel band) since 1986, and other than a trigger job it is bone stock and that is the way it is going to stay.

Funds permitting I wouldn't mind picking up another one and put a heavy match barrel and laminate thumbhole stock on it.
 
ckid said:
Greyghost, I agree with you on the down falls.

If you look at every other long gun in Ruger's line up they have built in bases for there excellent scope rings.....Why on earth did they not work that into the 10/22 design is beyond me????

The factory sights, especially the rear one are very substand IMHO.

I have been shooting the same 10/22 Deluxe (checkered walnut with no barrel band) since 1986, and other than a trigger job it is bone stock and that is the way it is going to stay.

Funds permitting I wouldn't mind picking up another one and put a heavy match barrel and laminate thumbhole stock on it.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason they went with a drilled and tapped receiver is because people don't like being forced to use one set of rings. Why you would is beyond me.
 
ckid said:
I have been shooting the same 10/22 Deluxe (checkered walnut with no barrel band) since 1986, and other than a trigger job it is bone stock and that is the way it is going to stay.

Funds permitting I wouldn't mind picking up another one and put a heavy match barrel and laminate thumbhole stock on it.
Click to expand...
Funny, I could have typed this word for word. ;)

I spend a lot of time at my camp and always have a gun or two with me. Whenever I open the safe to choose which gun is heading north, I almost always grab the 10/22. The only mod I've made to the gun is to the bolt release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom