10-22 question

[FL-NC]

I have a pretty old 10-22. its about 30 years old, and back then there were 2 versions- standard, and deluxe. The deluxe (which I have) has a wood stock with checkering and no barrel band. I believe it was $20 more than the standard. I couldn't begin to guess how many thousand rounds of cheap ammo have been fired through this thing. I don't think its ever malfunctioned. It has a no-name 4x scope. A few months ago, for the first time- apart from an occasional wipe-down with an oily rag- I took it apart and cleaned it. I had to go on you tube to figure how to take it apart, and I removed 30 years worth of nasty out of it. Today I was shooting it, and not only did it function flawlessly- the POI didn't hardly shift- even after it bouncing around during a move from out of state . Also, I can still hit 1" square target repair pasties at 50 yards with it, flawlessly. Today I was shooting that federal auto match from a bulk pack. This is the only 10-22 I have ever owned. Is this level of performance and reliability normal for these guns?

 

[e rex]

I have an older 10-22, the carbine model with a far lesser stock and a barrel band. It was one of those "I'll throw this in with the deal" guns. It had been abused and was full of sand. I installed a Power Custom competition hammer and shims and the trigger became very good. Installed a Valquartsen (spelling) extractor and it became very reliable.
Took the barrel band off and cut the tip of the stock off, glass bedded the action and put a lump of glass bedding under the barrel in front of the barrel wedge. Now when the barrel-action is removed and reinstalled it always go to the same place. This little rifle is now more reliable and accurate than it has any right to be. Also replaced the bolt stop, don't know if this is necessary but I was buying parts.

 

[jmr40]

I'm convinced the versions w/o barrel band are more accurate. The stocks fit me better too. All of them are about as rugged and reliable as you'll get. I've had several over the years and either buy a version without the barrel band or replace the stock now. Some were pretty accurate, but most were average at best. I'd say 1.5-2" groups at 50 yards is pretty typical, but I've seen some standard models that were 1/2" guns at 50 yards with match ammo. Their target guns will normally shoot 1/2" all the time.

If you look closely at Rugers website they now offer around 100 different versions of the 10-22. I bought this 3-4 years ago and it has become my favorite 22. It is the LVT, or light varmint/target version. It has a target barrel, chamber and trigger just like the target gun, but with a mid-weight 20" barrel. It is about 7 1/4 lbs scoped which is a good compromise and the longer 20" barrel balances well.

This gun outshoots my CZ. It is pretty consistent for 5 shots inside 1/2" @ 50 and 1" @ 100. I've since replaced the scope in the photo with one that has dials on it and have been playing around out to 200 yards. I've shot a few 2" groups, but 3"-3.5" is more common. On a day with no wind I set out clay targets between 200-220 yards and shoot them. I don't hit every shot. With the scope set for 200 yards still requires some holdover at 220. I don't think the scope has enough adjustment to get me to 300, but I want to try that next.

 

[dfariswheel]

I don't know about the recent models with the painted finishes and plastic trigger group, but Bill Ruger certainly got the 10/22 flat RIGHT.
These things are indestructible, reliable beyond most any other .22, reasonably accurate, and "shootable" as can be.
I suspect the 10/22 will go down as the best all around .22 carbine of all time.

I bought my first one around 1967 and fired god only knows how many bricks of ammo through it.
It was the-then standard walnut stock with aluminum butt plate original model.
I passed it on to a relative who shot the hell out of it, and he passed it on to his kids who really shot the hell out of it, now one of whom is teaching his girls to shoot using it.
No one can even guess how many rounds it's fired and it not only still shoots just as well, it's not even that worn looking.

I owned several other 10/22's over the years from a deluxe model with checkering and a Williams receiver sight, to a tricked out thumbhole stocked version with a Clark heavy fluted barrel and a Leupold 12X telescope, and if they'd let it go, I'd still like to have the original rifle back.

 

[namedpipes]

I have two of the barrel band model, slightly modified with sling, Volquartsen auto bolt release and Tech Sights Aperture sights.

They're both reliable and accurate. And fun / cheap to shoot.

 

[Llama Bob]

As a Project Appleseed instructor, I see a lot of 22 autos on the line. It's my personal opinion that the 10/22s are the best by some margin. That's why I bought a 10/22 LVT (mine looks just like jmr40s) and it's been good to me. No failures, and right about MOA accuracy off the bench with CCI mini mags. Positional stability is pretty good too.

 

[FL-NC]

I'm convinced the versions w/o barrel band are more accurate. The stocks fit me better too. All of them are about as rugged and reliable as you'll get. I've had several over the years and either buy a version without the barrel band or replace the stock now. Some were pretty accurate, but most were average at best. I'd say 1.5-2" groups at 50 yards is pretty typical, but I've seen some standard models that were 1/2" guns at 50 yards with match ammo. Their target guns will normally shoot 1/2" all the time.

If you look closely at Rugers website they now offer around 100 different versions of the 10-22. I bought this 3-4 years ago and it has become my favorite 22. It is the LVT, or light varmint/target version. It has a target barrel, chamber and trigger just like the target gun, but with a mid-weight 20" barrel. It is about 7 1/4 lbs scoped which is a good compromise and the longer 20" barrel balances well.
View attachment 769044
This gun outshoots my CZ. It is pretty consistent for 5 shots inside 1/2" @ 50 and 1" @ 100. I've since replaced the scope in the photo with one that has dials on it and have been playing around out to 200 yards. I've shot a few 2" groups, but 3"-3.5" is more common. On a day with no wind I set out clay targets between 200-220 yards and shoot them. I don't hit every shot. With the scope set for 200 yards still requires some holdover at 220. I don't think the scope has enough adjustment to get me to 300, but I want to try that next.

Sounds like I got a winner then. Nothing has been done to mine except adding the previously mentioned scope. I have thought about doing different stuff to mine in the past, but there just doesn't seem to be any reason to. So all I bought was 2 extra mags and ammo. One of those "if it ain't broke don't fix it scenarios". I've also had many opportunities to buy others over the years, but couldn't justify it. I also have a nylon 66 that's cool just because, and a savage mk2 I shoot suppressed with subs- also very accurate- but I keep going back to that 10-22.

 

[Crunchy Frog]

I always liked the Deluxe with the checkered stock. I have a standard carbine that I received for Christmas when I was in high school. That was back when the standard rifles came with a walnut stock. Mine was a reliable plinker but not as accurate as your rifle.

About ten years ago I ran across a website called Rimfire Central. Whatever you do, stay away from that place. If you value your savings account, stay away. In all sincerity I learned a lot about the 10/22 and rimfire firearms in general. My plinker has seen a few modifications and it's an even better shooter.

 

[bannockburn]

FL-NC

My experiences with my 10/22 pretty mirror your own. I bought it new nearly 40 years ago (my first rifle; think I walked out the door with it for something like $72 at the time). Lost track of the thousands of rounds I have put through and soon discovered it was more accurate than I could shoot it with the iron sights. So I added a Weaver K2.5 scope and some Uncle Mike's sling swivels and have been happily shooting it ever since.

 

[ontarget]

Never owned a 10-22. Always thought about it but have been happy with my Marlins. Well thanks to this thread now I'm thinking again...

 

[FL-NC]

Never owned a 10-22. Always thought about it but have been happy with my Marlins. Well thanks to this thread now I'm thinking again...

I also have an older (20 years old) marlin 882 SSV in 22 magnum. Its a great shooter too.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have a carbine I bought about 30 years ago. It always feeds fine. It has a factory trigger that goes click clack and feels like its about 10 lbs. It is usually not better than a 1.5" gun at 50 yards regardless off the ammo it is fed. Most of the other carbines I have seen are about the same.

 

[LoonWulf]

Only one i had was built into a .17m2 from just a parts box action and trigger group.
I actually swapped the metal group for a plastic one (still have the metal group), put it in a hogue stock and installed a 20" GM 17m2 barrel and heavy bolt handle.

Handle wasnt quite heavy enough, it still blew up a couple times, till i switched it to a extra heavy handle, and spring and started only using hornady ammo.

Other than that the gun ran like a top, and would hold 2" at 100yds with little effort.

 

[jeepnik]

I tend to accumulate .22 lr rifles. Pretty much every action / magazine type, and that's just Nylons. With regards to functioning in semi autos, it's a toss up between the Nylon 66, 10/22 and Marlin 60.

I will say that the Ruger magazine is probably the best .22 lr rifle magazine out there. Most tube type magazines like the one on the Marlin 60 are fairly unprotected and can be damaged. This is where he Nylon 66 shines. With the tube in the butt stock it's well protected from dents and such.

 

[MedWheeler]

I bought one in 1986, and have always loved it. Like the OP's, it went decades without anything more than a cloth down the barrel and about the exterior.

Then, in 2011, I drank something spiked with tacti-kool-aid and fitted it with the Tapco/Intrafuse stock setup and sling. It's loads of fun to shoot this way, but I do more appreciate its original wood furniture and appearance. However, I've since acquired a Glenfield Model 75, two nice Marlin 99M1 carbines, and a Marlin 25 to satisfy my "wood-.22" desires. Prior to the first of those, the 10-22 was my only repeating rifle.

The only issue I've ever had with this Ruger is the front sight coming off during a shooting session a few years back. I was using a scope, so I kept shooting.

 

[Picher]

Bought a used 10-22 Deluxe with original walnut stock ($200) and installed a Shilen bull-barrel about 20 years ago. (Picture was taken 10 years ago, with one of my grandsons shooting it.) Did lots of mods, including bedding, trigger work, reduced headspace, extractor tuning, and correcting first shot flyers. Shoots sub-MOA at 50 yards.

 

[kBob]

If I remember correctly the guns with the flat butt plate and no barrel band have there receiver marked 10-22 Rifle and the common herd of curved smooth butt plates and barrel bands is (or was back in the day) marked 10/22 carbine.

Any how a common tweak on 10/22 carbnes is to remove the barrel band and hog out the inside portions that actually touch the barrel so there is no contact when reinstalled. Some folks Just remove the barrel band and shoot it as is. Some saw off the "nose" of the stock where the band goes either flat or at a racy angle and some thin down the forestock to flow into the nose less abruptly. One guy had some nice looking carbines over on RFC where he had cut off the top of the band where it would contact the rifle and held the remains of the band on with screws in the stock painted to match the band. Looked very nice and allowed barrel free float or pressure pad only.

As for those smooth butt plates, I just pull then off, slip a section of bicycle inner tube over the center portion of the butt plate and reinstall them. No more sliding around on windbreakers and such.

The auto bolt release is an easy DIY. You can do wonders on the trigger pull with hand stones and such.....or really bugger things by trying to go to far, but taking your time and checking often can really improve things.

For us older guys replacing the rear sight (or at least folding it down and ignoring it) with a receiver peep really helps things if you want to stay iron sighted. A bud has one of the Williams ramped peeps and slightly higher front sight and it works well. I like the Tech Sights, but anything to give you a peep would be a help.

My biggest issue with scopes is when guys try to use big old scoped that require medium or high mounts and the sighting line gets to high. You really need a comb to give you a higher cheek weld to take real advantage of larger scopes.

One of my kids wants to try a cheap holographic (head up display type) red dot on his space stocked (API?) 10/22. I am curious as to whether one can use the stock sights though it what with the scope rail being on and the sight mounted on that though I doubt it.

I have oft wondered how the aperature from a Ranch Rifle might work on the rear sight of a 10/22 and before the young'uns tell me that is to far from my eye to get any effect from the peep......I was sort of weaned on and 03 springfield with its little bitty peep way out younder.

What I have always wanted for young eyes was something like the old Millet pistol sights with click adjustable windage and elevation out in the rear sight dove tail. Repeatable, lockable adjustments would be nice instead of "hit it with a hammer for windage and loosen it up and guess for elevation"

Hmmm, I wonder if there is enough meat on a 10/22 Carbine barrel to mount a S&W revolver sight on it like Bob Day used to do on 1911 slides and what that would do for barrel harmonics and accuracy?

-kBob

 

[Picher]

The 10-22 action is quite flimsy and only has one screw to hold it to the stock. Having a heavy bull-barrel on mine, I put an epoxy pressure pad with about 6 lbs of uplift against the barrel. That levered the rear of the bedded action firmly in the stock and minimizes vibration. The rifle shoots GREAT!

 

[farmerboy78]

I have one that the only parts that are still ruger is the action and bolt. Aftermarket stock, whistle pig barrel, Kidd 2stage trigger... the thing rivals my custom vostok and bsa international mkII for accuracy now. When I do my part, it will shoot sub 1/2" @ 50yds, easily.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Gotta say (flame suit on), I don't love the 10/22. Had two old ones and a recent poly-stocked carbine. Accuracy was so-so on all, feeding was as good as any other semi-auto rimfire, but jams were not unknown- or, thanks to the awkward bolt hold open and mag release, fun to clear. The triggers sucked.
They are OK guns. I'm sure they can be tuned into great guns, and, obviously, the aftermarket support is dazzling, but- from the box- I just don't like them enough to keep them.
I'll stick to my bolt action antique Marlins, thank you. My kids always liked the turn bolts better, too....
Just my two coppers. Glad ya'll like yours!

 

[MedWheeler]

NIGHTLORD40K writes:

Gotta say (flame suit on), I don't love the 10/22. Had two old ones and a recent poly-stocked carbine. Accuracy was so-so on all, feeding was as good as any other semi-auto rimfire, but jams were not unknown- or, thanks to the awkward bolt hold open and mag release, fun to clear. The triggers sucked.
They are OK guns. I'm sure they can be tuned into great guns, and, obviously, the aftermarket support is dazzling, but- from the box- I just don't like them enough to keep them.
I'll stick to my bolt action antique Marlins, thank you. My kids always liked the turn bolts better, too....
Just my two coppers. Glad ya'll like yours!

I can certainly understand that. While I do like mine (and probably shouldn't have Tapco'd it as I mentioned above), they're not the refined European sports performance car of the rimfire world. They're more like a good 4x4 truck or Jeep, capable of doing a lot of nearly everything, instead of excelling at any one thing. And, like 4x4s, they're heavily supported by an active aftermarket industry.

Honestly, I think my $99 Mossberg 702 shoots straighter than my 10-22, though I've yet to shoot them side by side.. it definitely has a better trigger.

 

[jmorris]

30 years of shooting before having to get gunk out of a 22 might be normal if you don’t shoot them much. Most of my 10/22’s need more attention than that, the ones with suppressors get dirty very quickly.

 

[CraigC]

Is this level of performance and reliability normal for these guns?

Pretty much. You'll obviously see complaining online but IMHO, these are the tiny minority. There are five million of these guns in circulation and that says something.

I don't know about the recent models with the painted finishes...

To be fair, the receivers were only anodized for the first four years. They've been coated since 1968.

 

[PapaG]

Have had more than a few. My present standard one is about 35 years old and has been "upgraded" with an old, old original walnut stock, a Volq hammer, barrel block and fiber bolt buffer. It shoots fine but not up to my 455 or old 141 Anschutz supporter. I built a heavy barreled target gun with a midway kit and it was disappointing. A Ruger target model with better trigger, hammer, block, etc. was a great shooter but the first round out of a magazine was always 1/4" out of the group. Doesn't sound like much but that's two or three points in our fifty meter 20 shot matches. I just loaded an extra round and fired the first one into the berm. Think I need a new one of some kind but have trouble choosing from all the possible ones out there. Present one will go to one of the kids some day.

 

[FL-NC]

30 years of shooting before having to get gunk out of a 22 might be normal if you don’t shoot them much. Most of my 10/22’s need more attention than that, the ones with suppressors get dirty very quickly.

I would say 1-2 bricks of ammo a year.