Spending 3 bills when that will buy me a new 10-22 at Big 5 is not attractive.
In the end, only you can justify the cost. A relatively cheap barrel (~$100) may or may not improve accuracy, depending on how good or bad your barrel is. Which is why I don't bother with them. A good barrel will absolutely improve accuracy and even a CZ will be jealous. Methinks most negative internet rhetoric on this subject originates with cheap barrels. I would strongly suggest spending good money on a barrel and expect that to be $200 or more. Everything else can be upgraded over time. Clark, Shilen, KID and Lilja all produce very good barrels, with Lilja being the best and most expensive. I'd suggest one of the first three. Clark and Shilen offer mid-weight barrels that are a FAR better solution if you want to actually use your rifle in the field. For some reason, many think they need a bull barrel for accuracy but this is not the case.
Its been my experience that most people see more accuracy from trigger improvements than barrel swaps.
You can shoot tiny groups with a 5lb trigger and a good barrel but it's impossible to shoot tiny groups with a KID trigger and factory barrel.
I don't see the point of the MOA receiver, might as well just buy a new rifle. I highly doubt the Ruger receivers are that sloppy. IF I were going to spend money on a 10/22 it would be barrel first new rifle second, glad I don't have that problem.
The point of an aftermarket receiver is to get a better platform for you build and to avoid buying a complete rifle and then replacing everything. When I did this one, I could've bought a Ruger carbine for $230 and then replaced everything but the receiver and bolt. I did not, I bought an aftermarket receiver for $130, which is all CNC machined, has a real anodized hardcoat and is setup for a more robust scope mount using 8-40 screws. Then I bought an accurized bolt for $80. The appeal of the MOA in particular is that it is stainless steel instead of aluminum, which eliminates the barrel droop issue when hanging a heavy barrel off an aluminum receiver.
I also doubt the MOA CORP receiver has much impact on getting a .22 on paper at 400 yards. That is the shooter and a TON of luck, not the receiver. The bullet drop of a 36gr CCI mini-mag at 400 yards is 249.51 inches. I'd be more impressed with a single ragged hole at 50 yards but I suspect you won't see one posted anywhere using that receiver.
It might, might not. I have never shot a .22LR at 400yds but it ain't luck when I shoot it at 250yds. It just requires a scope with a lot of adjustment and/or a canted base. Again, I'm not understanding the hostility towards the MOA receiver. It's one of the best available.
My bone stock 10/22 is way accurate enough for squirrels as I suspect most out of the box rifles would be also. I suspect most folks having accuracy issues with their 10/22's need to look in the mirror or at their ammo.
It depends solely on the individuals needs. Sometimes a stock rifle is accurate enough, sometimes it is not. A rifle that only shoots 1"@50yds is basically a 50yd rifle. The .22LR has a lot more potential for this and if you want to shoot small game beyond 50yds, you need more accuracy.
Nodak receiver, KID 2-stage trigger, R/T bolt, Clark 21.5" mid-weight barrel, Warne mounts, Bushnell Elite 10x and Boyd's "tacticool" stock. Good for 0.30"@50yds with Wolf MT. Which is 0.10" better than my CZ shoots.
For ~$225 the rifle shoots as well as either of my 10/22's with match barrels and free floated stocks.
