I like the 10/22, but it's the most overrated .22 rimfire ever made.
Not hardly. It was designed as a plinker. A run of the mill .22LR rifle as a rimfire counterpart to the .44 carbine. Its design affords very easy and very economical modifications to make the old plinker anything its owner wants it to be. Name another rimfire rifle that can be built into anything with an allen wrench and a screwdriver??? Even the AR requires specialized tools and a headspace gauge to change the barrel.
Every one of my old Mossberg, Winchester, Marlin, Savage, and Remington rimfires will outshoot my 10/22s by a good margin.
That may or may not be debatable. No doubt the Ruger is not the most accurate rimfire on the market. It was never intended to be.
In order to get the 10/22 to run with any of the others, I'd have to spend more money than the gun cost for barrel, trigger, and bedding upgrades.
Money spent correctly will yield a very accurate rifle that shoots better than any other factory automatic and on par with many bolt guns. $40 gets you a crisp, 2-3lb trigger. Name another rifle that can have that for $40, on the kitchen table with hand tools. Name another .22 rifle that you can install a match grade barrel into with nothing more than an allen wrench and have your $200 plinker shooting bugholes. Name another .22 rifle that an aftermarket company would even bother producing a $300 all CNC machined 14oz trigger for.
The 10/22 is a good, fun rimfire, but it's not a great one.
Millions of 10/22 owners would probably disagree.
You'd be better off buying your son a Marlin 795 or 60 if you want an accurate, reliable .22 for hunting.
That's certainly an option. As one who cut his teeth with a Marlin 60, the Ruger is a better-made rifle out of the box. Even if Marlins do tend to be a little more accurate.
This is just untrue. Both range from 5-6lbs, except the target models. The little 16" 10/22FS and youth models are 4.3-4.5lbs. That's light!
...and better balanced, and the stock isn't so fat.
That's debatable. A 10/22 carbine balances right at the magazine. Which holds ten rounds and fits flush with the stock. Most other guns offer a 5-7rd magazine that protrudes. Which is fine, I have several like that. But you can't hold the fat stock against the Ruger and not mention the protruding magazines of lesser capacity of most other rifles. Ain't no free lunches.
I hate it because it isn't what it should be, for the current price.
Then don't buy one. Apparently lots of folks believe they are a good value. Otherwise Ruger would not have produced them in such quantities over the last 48yrs. Nor would they be constantly adding new configurations and variations.
