10/22 Quality

[handle02]

The 10/22 is a good rifle (if you add enough parts to make it work as it should) My stepdad has owned his for 30+ years and its still working,but it very picky about what ammo it likes.I'm not saying they are bad guns their just not for me.My model 60 wont win any beauty contests but right out the box it's accurate,reliable,and holds more ammo than a 10/22.

 

[CraigC]

I don't think I'm the only one who had problems with multiple brands of ammo not feeding.

Certainly not, but the problems you had and the problems a few others have had are not typical of the platform.

I find it interesting that folks make so many derogatory comments that the 10/22 needs a huge aftermarket support because they need the parts to make them work. While no one makes similar statements about the AR-15 or 1911. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[JFrame]

I bought a plain-vanilla 10/22 in the past year to cannibalize the receiver for a build project.

I've been satisfied with it. The trigger pull actually feels lighter and crisper than the SS 10/22 I bought 10 years ago. I have no problems with the finish or the polymer trigger guard (both seem totally serviceable).

Wherever Ruger cut corners to maintain production at a certain price point, they seem to have thought it through pretty well.

.

 

[Dookie]

To make matters worse, my gunshop stripped to threads while mounting a scope for me. After a couple of hours of tapping I was not particularly thrilled. I was told "they don't make them like they used to"
Next time I'm buying a bare receiver and rolling my own.
If I want a plinker I'm buying an old one.

That is a gun shop error, not a gun error. It's aluminum, don't cinch it down or it will strip as you found out. A couple of HOURS tapping? You should be able to retap those holes to 8/32 in under two minutes. Plus, if you go to 8/32 it will be a stronger hold than the 6/48.
Operator error, plain and simple.

The new 10/22's are fugly, but they do not work any different then they used to.
What is nice is that it seems Ruger got the message about the quality. The newest 10/22's have a flat, non wrinkled receiver, and a blued barrel. I have seen them and they look nice. I don't know if they will continue with the ugly finish or they are just making a run.

 

[rice]

True, but the gun shop owner told me "Ruger doesn't make them like they used to"
I told him I was perfectly capable of screwing up my rifle without the help of his gunsmith.

 

[HKGuns]

I don't think I'm the only one who had problems with multiple brands of ammo not feeding. And yes, if I wanted a custom gun, I'd consider a 10/22, because then you can get all the nice parts to make it work perfectly.

No, you're probably not. But I'll zero you out by saying mine has run anything I put into it. I've shot everything from .22 shorts, .22 longs, .22 LR through it from whatever brand was the cheapest in the store I happened to be closest. Never had an issue with any of the ammo I've fed it.

So, there you go, your negative experience is now nullified by my exceptionally positive experience. Oh, by the way, it is very accurate as well.

 

[millertyme]

Bone stock stainless 20" about three years old right now. I must have bought it just before they switched to the poly trigger housings. It wouldn't make any difference to me. Lots of polymers out there replacing alloys in components. I have fed everything from Stingers to Thunderbolts without a hiccup. Once my brother too it out and shot a bunch of old, cheap ammo through it and failed to clean it afterwards. The bolt was a little sticky but that was it. A little Rem Oil and all was good. Yeah, I think the irons on it kind of suck but thats why I added a 4x Nikon Prostaff to it. Killed lots of squirrels and rabbits with it, lots more paper, and proudly display a 50 yard target with a ragged little dime-sized hole I put ten rounds through one sunny afternoon in Arizona. No Volquartsen parts, no fancy mag release, no high performance barrel. Just me, a sandbag, a factory 10 rounder filled with Velocitors, a decent scope, and the rifle. If you need a couple hundred in aftermarket parts to do the same maybe you just suck. I'm sure anyone could do the same with a Marlin 60 or Remington 597.

 

[bandk]

No, you're probably not. But I'll zero you out by saying mine has run anything I put into it. I've shot everything from .22 shorts, .22 longs, .22 LR through it from whatever brand was the cheapest in the store I happened to be closest. Never had an issue with any of the ammo I've fed it.

So, there you go, your negative experience is now nullified by my exceptionally positive experience. Oh, by the way, it is very accurate as well.

I didnt realize thr would take anything othr than LR. Is this true for all 10/22's pr only certain submodels? Would a different mag he required?

 

[bigfatdave]

The rotary magazine can actually hold and feed rounds shorter than .22LR fairly well, as each round is in a little depression rather than in a box mag rattling around.
It won't cycle them, but you can manually cycle for plinking, just make sure to clean out the chamber well after playing these games, there can be lead buildup at the transition from smooth chamber to rifled barrel, and that buildup could cause a longer round to stick if left alone.

If you try it, know a few things:
1 - shorts are just as expensive as nice .22lr ammo
2 - partial ejection/extraction makes for interesting malfunctions, be ready for odd things when running outside the design of a tool
3 - it only works with direct-load into the chamber, single rounds in a normal mag, or from a rotary mag
4 - you're asking for a squib if you run the no-powder primer-only rounds