WTF happened to 10/22's?
- Thread starter Boomer454
- Start date
i DON'T LIKE 10/22'S AS I always have to spend alot of money to get it to look and shoot the way I want! I am an traditionalist and love nice bluing and walnut, I have owned 3 and have sold them all! I vowed never to buy one after seeing how cheap and ill finnished the new guns are, but i found a 1969 fingergrove for less than a new one and I think I finally found the last and only Ruger 10/22 I will ever own. It seems all the US made gun companies are looking to cut costs and the first thing that is sacraficed is the quality, I guess if guys still buy the product ,the company thinks its OK to continue to produce sub quality guns, that my 2 CENTS, Dale in T-Bay
Why do I feel like I'm talking to the ether... The 'PLASTIC' reciever is NOT plastic. Its composite. Composite is tougher than the old crappy aluminum, and is also more consistent to work with. Its SUPERIOR. The quality has GONE UP.
lineofsight
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, BC
Cause only in the ether is the receiver composite - it is aluminium. The trigger guard (B-2) / assembly (B-20D) is polymer in the new versions (as is the trigger and mag release).
I don't like the "polymer" trigger group. It feels cheap. I don't particularly care if it's stronger or not... My last aluminum trigger'd 10/22 never had any problems breaking or cracking.
Don't get me wrong, I still love 10/22's, but this "polymer" plastic stuff is pretty lame.
Don't get me wrong, I still love 10/22's, but this "polymer" plastic stuff is pretty lame.
I concur. The polymer trigger guard is superior to the pot metal trigger guard of the previous models. I would readily swap. The "crinkle" finish is the result of a different paint; both the "blued" (black) and "stainless" receivers are and have been painted aluminum alloy. They are easily repainted or stripped.
lineofsight
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, BC
Thank thats is a "call"
Incidentally if Nine wants another polymer one see my sig.Have both, prefer the metal mostly because of texture and no seams.
However, if intent with the build is to be light then would go with the polymer, several ounces lighter.
bought a brand new carbine today. action sounds like it has sand in it. when i broke it all down i had to clean rust out of the receiver. barrel and receiver would barely come out of the stock, i had to smash it out. zero sanding on inside of the stock, so less so, that i had to sand the whole thing just to put the gun back together. sad. i havnt shot it yet, but i have to admit i expected way more out of a legendary model. you would think that the quality would get better with time. i dont see it that way. pick up a model from a few years ago and they dont even compare. im still going to keep an open mind until i get it to the range. lets hope the lead doesnt hit the target sideways.....
I've compared fit and finish on old and new ones. It's gone downhill and bashed a few rocks on the way. Maybe polymer is superior, maybe not. Build quality has gone the way of Marlin and Remington: not what it used to be.
lineofsight
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, BC
Bought one two weeks ago, no rust, everything nicely lubed (not excessively), barrel very tight fit with receiver (am okay with that as would not be any barrel droop issue if kept factory barrel), stock was perfect (inletting smooth / no rough edges / splinters, no dings), everything the way it should be.
If your experience is different (rust, no sanding of stock) then return it. Sounds like one that slipped by QC if as you say. The trigger, mag release, trigger guard, barrel band are all polymer (its $250 at WSS... so dont expect titanium) but other than that my experience is the opposite of yours. So much so that purchased the parts to build a second one - they're like lego for bigger kids.
