.22LR bolt guns?

[maximus83]

Popular choices in current production 22 bolt guns that are affordable ($400 +/-100): ruger american, savage, browning t-bolt, and my choice the CZ455.

Moving up the $$$ tree ($1000-1800) gets you into sako, suhl, maybe a remington 40x and anschutz.

Wanna spend big $ ($2000-4000) gets you into the 2500x actions, gorham customs, stiller, turbo, and other benchrest customs that will damn near punch a single hole at 50yds all day long.

Going back to the affordables, the savage has a pretty good trigger but suffers from well known extractor problems and shitty stamped mags that the lips eventually open and dump ammo all over the place. Ruger 77-22's I've seen at the matches just cant seem to be accurate, when they show they always place at the bottom of the score list. Have no experience with the t-bolt, never seen one at a match. CZ's are pretty popular, mags that work and pretty reliable and accurate. They have an occasional failure that the bolt pulls out on the extraction stroke if trigger is set to light or improperly.

There are a lot of used bolt guns out of production that are very nice, even if parts support is an issue. Kimber (yea, kimber) made a very good bolt gun for the military as a trainer model82G and they were an absolute steal of a deal when the CMP had them for around $200 and H&R made a beauty as well. Unfortunately both are usually selling for $600+ now used when you can find them.

Rimfire central has the skinny on all the 22 stuff

My current setup for 22 steel matches: CZ455 tacticool, upgrades include threaded bolt knob, cheek rest, pillared and partially bedded, factory trigger adjusted to 2.1lbs

Great summary of the price points and best options in each.

Given the OP's use for the rifle, sounds like you're in the first price point and in that group, I'd go with the CZ or maybe the RAR. CZ would get the nod from me, I've owned several (452/455) in both .22 and .17 HMR, and they are reliable enough and extremely accurate for a low-cost trainer. Also my Dad has the Browning T-bolt and while an interesting design, the bolt action is not going to give you a good training platform for your centerfire rifles. Plus I found Dad's sample of one was not as accurate as the CZ's. I've heard some similar opinion about the T-bolt accuracy on rimfirecentral. Also my Dad has one of the recent heavy barreled Savage .22's (don't recall which model), and while it's every bit as accurate as the CZ's, the bladed accutrigger, the sometimes sloppy tolerances/fit of the parts, machining, etc., is just not as good. Again, an example of one, but I hear this repeated by others about the Savages. Doesn't seem to affect rifle accuracy or functioning enough to matter, but some find it an annoyance. All things considered, I'd take the CZ for a trainer in this price range.

[tb-av]

@FMCDH

the next time you go out with both the CZ455 and 40X, could you shoot a few groups with each for comparison. Or actually just some groups from the CZ455... I can see the 40X above.

I would just like to see a same day, same shooter, same conditions, comparison of good groups and bad groups from each rifle. It would be nice to see a visual of the two price points. The $850 CZ vs $2K 40X

[tigershilone]

So why is the bolt knob so important. Honestly that's the last thing I would think anyone would care about but it seems like everyone wants an upgraded knob.

Mine gives me an extra 1.125" inch longer extension over where the factory round knob would stop at. This gives me more room to get my fingers/thumb on the handle without interfering with the scope bell and lets me run the bolt faster without slipping off like I occasionally did with the round knob. Doesn't seem like a big deal until you try it.

The CZ bolt throw put the handle way high, causes interference issues with some scope and ring combos.

[Bimmer]

So why is the bolt knob so important...

Doesn't seem like a big deal until you try it...

On a bolt action, the bolt handle is important...

Unlike an AR, where you probably rarely/never use the charging handle, on a bolt gun you're grabbing/manipulating the bolt handle as often as you use the trigger.

My RAR came with a thicker-than-standard bolt handle, but it's smooth and slippery. I'm thinking of upgrading to aftermarket, though throwing $50+ at a <$300 gun doesn't seem economical.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

@FMCDH

the next time you go out with both the CZ455 and 40X, could you shoot a few groups with each for comparison. Or actually just some groups from the CZ455... I can see the 40X above.

I would just like to see a same day, same shooter, same conditions, comparison of good groups and bad groups from each rifle. It would be nice to see a visual of the two price points. The $850 CZ vs $2K 40X

And add in the ammo variable. 22lr 'Match' (Subsonic 40gr) runs from $8 to $20 per 50. So far I am definately seeing a correlation.

Of course I was, and it is common to, look at 50y groups when the goal of these rifles is to shoot out to 200y. On the Hide, someone figured out that at 200y, with the drop rate of ammo, that you need down very low (like fps) to keep elevation under control. It seems this is where the more expensive ammo really stands out when measured.

[Bimmer]

On the Hide, someone figured out that at 200y, with the drop rate of ammo, that you need down very low (like fps) to keep elevation under control...

Huh?

Anyway, AFAIK, "match" .22lr is subsonic because supersonic rounds will inevitably go transonic within 50-100yds. Starting subsonic means never going transonic, even if trajectories aren't as flat...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Huh?

Anyway, AFAIK, "match" .22lr is subsonic because supersonic rounds will inevitably go transonic within 50-100yds. Starting subsonic means never going transonic, even if trajectories aren't as flat...

Sorry, deviation in fps, not absolute fps. That would be silly. A big deviation in fps causing vertical stringing on longer shots.

[w3453l]

I've been looking into getting a .22 bolt action rifle myself. I handled a Sako Finnfire II at a LGS, and it felt great. Should they be good to go? I don't see much about them online. I know they're not the cheapest option, but around $800 it didn't seem to be too crazy.

I did think about the CZ mention earlier here, but I'm wondering if after all the upgrades people are mentioning the guns just won't come out to the same price?

Are there any known issues with Sako's that I should be aware of? I'd like to just get something trouble and hassle free from the start. CZ is not out of the question, but the Finnfire did feel great in person for whatever it's worth.

[tb-av]

Speaking of options, what is that muzzle device I see on most all the >2K$ rifles. It looks like it has calibrations on it.

[tb-av]

when the goal of these rifles is to shoot out to 200y.

I did not know that. I thought .22lr was sort of a max out at 100Y deal.

And add in the ammo variable.

Right, I guess that's where I was going with the good groups / bad groups. I was wondering for instance if the overall relation was somewhat linear or if say the lower priced rifles fell apart more drastically with bad ammo.

IOW, if the very best group on the expensive rifle was 100% and the worst group was 80%.... would the lesser rifle exhibit that same 20% difference even if it's comparative performance was 90% for best group. Or might it's worse group fall off more significantly. I guess that's ammo sensitivity. Just wondering if there is some relation to cost or if every rifle is basically a crap shoot as to what it likes.