Experiences with Ruger 1022?

[Maverick223]

Good luck, the "blued" receivers have not been anodized since 1968 when they went to a teflon coating. We all know what 40yr old anodized aluminum looks like, usually not very good.

Okay, Teflon coated, either way a whole heck of a lot more durable than the Krylon finish that the new ones have. Also anodized Al. seems to hold up well from what I have seen, I would prefer it over most else.

There are lots of complaints about the presence of the new plastic trigger housings but so far not one report of failure or an actual problem.

I never said there was a problem with it, I said I didn't like it...you'll not change my mind.

Apparently there are also those who cannot tell the difference between matte blued steel and paint but that's a discussion for another thread.

Apparently, since Al. cannot be blued, and there isn't, nor has there ever been, any steel (save for a couple of SS before the idea was dropped) Ruger 10/22 receivers (exclusive of the 10/22 Magnum). It is not blued, it is paint, and they have never been blued.

 

[CraigC]

Okay, Teflon coated, either way a whole heck of a lot more durable than the Krylon finish that the new ones have. Also anodized Al. seems to hold up well from what I have seen, I would prefer it over most else.

Not really. The new receivers are powder coated in a process not much different from the teflon coating application. Again, lots of complaints about the change but I have nary a problem with my coated receiver. A Type III hardcoat may hold up well but Ruger's anodized aluminum is notorious for chipping and looking rough. Which is why lots of single action grip frames get bead blasted or polished. My clear anodized "stainless" 10/22 from the `90's has already been refinished as it had started to thin and chip and darken in those areas. That said, if the new finish is a problem, it is easily redone in something more durable or you can skip it altogether and get a receiver from Nodak/Spud with a black Type III anodized hardcoat for $130 shipped.

I never said there was a problem with it, I said I didn't like it...you'll not change my mind.

The Marlin model 60, which has been brought up many times in this thread has always had a plastic triggerguard. I might add a cheap plastic triggerguard much inferior to Ruger's polymer, that is more akin to polymer pistol frames, yet no one complains about them.

Apparently, since Al. cannot be blued, and there isn't, nor has there ever been, any steel (save for a couple of SS before the idea was dropped) Ruger 10/22 receivers (exclusive of the 10/22 Magnum). It is not blued, it is paint, and they have never been blued.

I wasn't referring to you but to the large number of internet dummies that think the barrels on the newer guns are painted. When they are in fact bead blasted and blued.

 

[AKElroy]

I am sorry I also recommended the Magnum Research. Without fail, all of the ones I've seen have been quite good. I'm not sure what happened to them.

No worries. I do not think a better platform exists for a ground up build, and it was very accurate & reliable out of the box. The OEM trigger was horrible, and the carbon fiber barrel was too light for my style of shooting. Ditto the Axiom stock.

The good news is I sold the Axiom stock for more than I paid for the replacement target laminate, and the kidd barrel was a price swap with someone wanting the carbon fiber barrel. I even sold the stock trigger group, so I am roughly even on the out of pocket & I have what I consider to be a phenominal rig. I have not had a chance to shoot it yet with the Kidd barrel; can't wait.

 

[Maverick223]

Not really. The new receivers are powder coated in a process not much different from the teflon coating application.

Then they have changed again, the most recent coating that I have seen was a paint, not a electrostatic or powder coat. It was very susceptible to chipping, and had already started flaking pretty bad in the ejection port area.

The Marlin model 60, which has been brought up many times in this thread has always had a plastic triggerguard.

Are you sure? I thought that the older M-60s were aluminum at one time. Either way the Marlin is a cheaper rifle, so I could tolerate a little cost cutting.

 

[WNTFW]

Rimfire Technologies sells aluminum trigger guards for both.

I will only buy one if my plastic one breaks.

 

[CraigC]

Then they have changed again, the most recent coating that I have seen was a paint, not a electrostatic or powder coat. It was very susceptible to chipping, and had already started flaking pretty bad in the ejection port area.

I don't think anybody really knows for sure, Ruger is not too free with such information. Call ten times, ask ten different people and get ten different answers. What I have seen looked like electrostatically adhered powder coating. Either way, my Charger receiver is holding up wonderfully, despite being taken apart and put back together more times than I can count.

Are you sure? I thought that the older M-60s were aluminum at one time. Either way the Marlin is a cheaper rifle, so I could tolerate a little cost cutting.

Mine is and I've had it for nearly 30yrs, having got it as a child.

Don't get me wrong, the Marlin rimfire autos are great rifles for the money and more accurate than the 10/22 out of the box. I know I thoroughly enjoyed growing up with mine. I'm just long past the point of being satisfied with a $70 rifle. Hell, the Warne rings on my newest 10/22 cost almost as much as the Marlin model 60 did. The 10/22 is a wonderful platform on which to build. From the plain $200 carbine to the lovely deluxe walnut sporter model and where else will you find a .22 auto with such potential that comes with cut-checkered Circassian walnut for $360?

 

[ArmedBear]

Trigger guard =/= trigger assembly

That said, I don't give two ****s what material Ruger or Marlin might use in the cheapest NIB guns I own, as long as said material works. That changes when a .22 costs $500 or more, but if you want a working rifle for $200 new, or less even, you can't be too picky.

My complaints with my 10/22 were that it was inaccurate and unreliable, therefore neither fun nor practical to shoot. The sights of any guns in that class are worthless except in bright sunlight, and the standard 10/22 stock drop is way too much for a scope. I never had a problem with what it was made of, nor, for that matter, how it was finished.

 

[Red Cent]

WTNFW, the rings are one piece DNZs.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/dednutz...D=6190925021&OVADGRPID=13133796909&OVNDID=ND1

Gander Mountain has them for the same price.
The scope is a Tru Glow 8x32x50mm. I own Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, Weaver (old ones) and for the price of $70.00 provides a very clear picture through the 4Xs of magnification. Probably would not put this on my 7MM Mag.

 

[CajunBass]

Well, in case the OP is still counting, I've got five of them (10/22's that is). They all work just fine for what I want them to do, which is kill squirrels, and bounce cans around. One of them has had a trigger job, the others are all stock, as far as I know, except for slings and scopes. I can't say they've never jammed, I'm sure they have a time or two, but not enough to pay much notice of.

 

[Ockhamsrifle]

10/22 bolt fails to lock back

My 10/22 bolt doesn't lock back when the magazine is empty. I remember that it used to stay back, but no longer. It probably has about 750 rounds through it. I cleaned it but it made no difference.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[FlyinBryan]

10/22's dont lock back on the last shot.

its only done manually with the bolt catch in front of the trigger guard.

 

[Maverick223]

10/22's dont lock back on the last shot. [...] its only done manually with the bolt catch in front of the trigger guard.

+1, it would indicate a problem if it did hold open. I'm not even aware of any aftermarket accessories that will convert it to LRBHO.

 

[benzy2]

edit....too slow to respond some times.

 

[41magsnub]

Seriously.. if somebody figured out how to do a LRBHO paired with easy bolt release modification on a 10/22 I'd like to hear about it!

 

[Maverick223]

Seriously.. if somebody figured out how to do a LRBHO paired with easy bolt release modification on a 10/22 I'd like to hear about it!

Yep, you can count me in too. You can at least get half of that, and replace or mod. the BHO to make it release with a flick of the charging handle (instead of the frustrating flipper that comes stock), but I imagine that you already know about that one.

 

[winchester '97]

Great to modify, but feel like cheap crap out of the box and are only as accurate as they need to be. But if modifying the rifle is your intention, they are the absolute best hands down as a platform to customise or build on. The thing is, marlin makes the 60 and the clip fed version, both of which will do what FlyBryan's rifle does out of the box, as much better guns to leave as is. Also have you looked at the Smith and Wesson M&P 15/22? it has all the handling qualities or your AR and would make a great practice gun, also takes the bull range of stocks and accessories or the AR, my friend has one and it shoots great. Basically if your going to leave it stock go with a marlin clip fed 795, the only 10/22's i ever handled shot okay, only ok, and felt like cheap crap. They were reliable though, but so is my marlin 60.

 

[CraigC]

I remember reading about a conversion that 'does' lock the bolt open on the last shot but it was expensive and you had to use proprietary magazines. Not worth the trouble or expense if you ask me. Probably heard about it on RFC.

 

[tc54]

my 1973 (or so) 10/22. still very accurate after many thousands of rounds. i'd say go ahead and get one!

 

[tenbears]

Last post I have to say, "Amen".

 

[FlyinBryan]

The thing is, marlin makes the 60 and the clip fed version, both of which will do what FlyBryan's rifle does out of the box

i keep hearing that (well, in fairness, only from one other person, but several times) but i have yet to actually see it, but would like to,

usually the factory marlins i see on the 50 yard line are indeed tighter groupers than the standard 10/22's, but i have not seen the one hole m&m size groups from them.

3/4" groups seem to be the norm from the 60's ive shot against, still very good, and definitly better than a stock ruger, but also definitly not on par with a .920 target barrel.

 

[Maverick223]

marlin makes the 60 and the clip fed version, both of which will do what FlyBryan's rifle does out of the box

They may be good, and are a better value IMO, but they aren't that good. If you are willing to pile money into the 10/22 it can perform much better. My ridiculously expensive custom 10/22 would shoot circles around a factory Marlin.

Also keep in mind that even the average 10/22 straight out of the box is squirrel hunting accurate.

 

[FlyinBryan]

They may be good, and are a better value IMO, but they aren't that good. If you are willing to pile money into the 10/22 it can perform much better. My ridiculously expensive custom 10/22 would shoot circles around a factory Marlin.

very good point that i left out there mav.

they actually are a better value, and i cant think of any other model that can top them for pure dollar driven accuracy.

they most definitly have their niche. (in fact, i think its safe to say they dominate it)

also agree, you wont find one that will hang with your custom 10/22, nor should one be expected to. from what ive seen, that is a tad optimistic.

 

[benzy2]

Out of curroisity has anyone shot the acusport 10-22 offerings? I saw a reivew for a couple a while back which made them sound like real shooters and I think their MSRP was under $400. I seem to remember hearing that they shot anywhere from 1/2-1 MOA with different midrange ammo. The best part was that they have a barrel that tapers from .920 to .705 making it much more friendly in the field than a full .920 bull barrel. I was hoping to hear is someone had put some ammo through them to know how they shot. It would be fun to find out who was making the barrels they used. It sounded like a great balance between an accurate 10/22 and one that carries well in the field.

 

[FlyinBryan]

couldnt say about the accusport, but on that same note, there was a fella at the range with one of those carbon fiber barrels. it was incredibly light, i think even lighter than the factory barrel. it was the standard .920 target barrel size, but several inches shorter than most target barrels.

he said it was 160 bux, and it was an absolute tack driver. 1/4" groups @50yds. he didnt say where he got it, but said it was made by magnum research. (his rifle was not a 22mag though, it was 22lr)

being super light, and shorter than normal became quite attractive when i saw how it was shooting.

paired with a nice overmold stock, i cant think of a more accurate, nimble little pack rifle.

i want one.

 

[Maverick223]

couldnt say about the accusport, but on that same note, there was a fella at the range with one of those carbon fiber barrels. it was incredibly light, i think even lighter than the factory barrel. it was the standard .920 target barrel size, but several inches shorter than most target barrels.

he said it was 160 bux, and it was an absolute tack driver. 1/4" groups @50yds. he didnt say where he got it, but said it was made by magnum research. (his rifle was not a 22mag though, it was 22lr)

being super light, and shorter than normal became quite attractive when i saw how it was shooting.

I have heard good things from the CF barrels, both the ones for 10/22 as well as the ones by Christensen Arms for centerfires. Keep in mind that Magnum Research is not a company that specializes in magnums, that is just their name, they are the same folks that make the Desert Eagle, Baby Eagle (Jericho) amongst other things. They are light, but also very expensive, the going rate right now appears to be about $250.00. For this reason, my next barrel is very likely to be a Tactical Solutions. It is a similar design, but uses fluted aluminum over a SS liner rather than carbon fiber over a bbl liner and is actually a bit lighter without being as costly (about $180.00).