Ruger 10 22

[djegators]

I think the 10/22 is an excellent option. Easily one of the most customizable firearms out there, ranks with the AR, 1911, and maybe a Rem 700.

A few simple upgrades are mandatory for me: extended mag release, auto bolt release, and a synthetic buffer. I also prefer a recoil pad for the stock to make the length of pull more manageable for me. If you using open sights, I like the Williams Firesights, otherwise a decent variable scope works well.

To go on a tangent, I have a "10/22" bench rest rifle, that can shoot dime groups at 50 yards, that has not one original Ruger 10/22 part on it.



(this pic was taken while I was waiting for my Weaver 24X target scope)

Notice the AR style charging handle:

[carbinero]

Funny you mentioned firesights. The compact model comes with fiber optics...leaned it against a tree, slid over and the plastic red part broke. Reminds me of el cheapo sights on a Kel Tec sub2000 9mm I used to have before graduating to the AR-15 platform. The sights still work--and you're right, they are better than the standard Ruger ones--but can't compare to Tech Sights FTW.

[Ouroborous]

Marlin 795 with tech sights is my preference. I found it to be real accurate out of the box (especially with wolf match target ammo) and affordable--I spent more on mags for it than I did on the gun

I also like that there aren't a million mods out there for it like the 10/22--makes it real easy to be done with it and just shoot the piss out of it.

[J-Dub]

I think the 10/22 is an excellent option. Easily one of the most customizable firearms out there, ranks with the AR, 1911, and maybe a Rem 700.

A few simple upgrades are mandatory for me: extended mag release, auto bolt release, and a synthetic buffer. I also prefer a recoil pad for the stock to make the length of pull more manageable for me. If you using open sights, I like the Williams Firesights, otherwise a decent variable scope works well.

To go on a tangent, I have a "10/22" bench rest rifle, that can shoot dime groups at 50 yards, that has not one original Ruger 10/22 part on it.



(this pic was taken while I was waiting for my Weaver 24X target scope)

Notice the AR style charging handle:

I would venture to say that there are 0 ruger parts on that rifle. Its cool and all, but I prefer to not blow 1k on a .22lr, as the whole point of the .22lr is to save money.

Cool rifle though.

[djegators]

I would venture to say that there are 0 ruger parts on that rifle. Its cool and all, but I prefer to not blow 1k on a .22lr, as the whole point of the .22lr is to save money.

Cool rifle though.

Different guns for different reasons. I have a stock 10/22 as well, with a few upgrades, and $99 scope on it.

[Hmac]

I think the 10/22 is an excellent option. Easily one of the most customizable firearms out there, ranks with the AR, 1911, and maybe a Rem 700.

A few simple upgrades are mandatory for me: extended mag release, auto bolt release, and a synthetic buffer. I also prefer a recoil pad for the stock to make the length of pull more manageable for me. If you using open sights, I like the Williams Firesights, otherwise a decent variable scope works well.

To go on a tangent, I have a "10/22" bench rest rifle, that can shoot dime groups at 50 yards, that has not one original Ruger 10/22 part on it.

Heh. I started out with a "few simple upgrades", ended up with this. The receiver is 1992 vintage, now is the only Ruger part on the rifle. Not a bench rest rifle, but extraordinarily accurate.

[brickboy240]

Our 10-22 was one of the stainless models and yes..only the barrel itself was stainless.

In fact, the cheapo paint on the receiver and trigger group turned an ugly chalky white when we cleaned the rifle using Gun Scrubber. Odd because we use Gun Scrubber on other non-steel gun parts (like Glock frames and the alloy receiver of a Beretta semi-auto 12ga) and it does not turn the finish.

The silver paint Ruger used was crap. We ended up Crea-koting the silver painted parts to get them back.

Ruger cut some serious corners on the silver finish of the "stainless" 10-22. If we had known this...I would have bought the blued version.

-brickboy240

[Hmac]

Our 10-22 was one of the stainless models and yes..only the barrel itself was stainless.

In fact, the cheapo paint on the receiver and trigger group turned an ugly chalky white when we cleaned the rifle using Gun Scrubber. Odd because we use Gun Scrubber on other non-steel gun parts (like Glock frames and the alloy receiver of a Beretta semi-auto 12ga) and it does not turn the finish.

The silver paint Ruger used was crap. We ended up Crea-koting the silver painted parts to get them back.

Ruger cut some serious corners on the silver finish of the "stainless" 10-22. If we had known this...I would have bought the blued version.

-brickboy240

Ruger's treatment of their receivers is generally pretty rough. They use paint, especially crinkle paint in later years, to hide the tooling marks.

I've stripped several 10-22 receivers down to aluminum with excellent results but it is kind of labor-intensive (see above photo). I start with a paint stripper to scrape the paint off, then bead blast (simple Harbor Freight attachment for my air compressor) to get the rest off, then a fair amount of hand sanding with wet-dry sandpaper progressively up to 1200 grit, then some time on a fine buffing wheel with red jeweler's rouge. It polishes up very nice. As mentioned, getting the paint off the inside of the receiver can definitely have a beneficial effect on the smoothness of the bolt.

Cerakoting is certainly an option but Cerakoting won't hide the tool marks, so the stripping and sanding is something one would probably want to do whether you leave it as polished aluminum or Cerakoted aluminum.

I've seen guys do the same polishing to the trigger housing, but I prefer Ruger's polymer housing rather than their older metal ones so I've never bothered.

[Icculus]

Ruger cut some serious corners on the silver finish of the "stainless" 10-22. If we had known this...I would have bought the blued version.

-brickboy240

Just like the "stainless" versions don't have stainless receivers and the stainless refers to the barrel; the "blued" versions don't have blued receivers (just blued barrels). All factory 10/22 receivers have always been aluminum. They are just painted to make them look "blued" and that paint is just as crappy as the silver.


E2A: HMAC, how do you like the TG2000 trigger? I'm getting ready to start acquiring the parts for another 10/22 build (to go with my super lightweight on page 1) and I'm torn on which trigger group between the VQ and and a KIDD 2 stage (undecided on pull weight, maybe 1lb on each stage).

[Hmac]

E2A: HMAC, how do you like the TG2000 trigger? I'm getting ready to start acquiring the parts for another 10/22 build (to go with my super lightweight on page 1) and I'm torn on which trigger group between the VQ and and a KIDD 2 stage (undecided on pull weight, maybe 1lb on each stage).

I really like the TG2000. Extremely well-made unit and extremely consistent in pull (Lyman gauge). Absolutely no complaints nor any second thoughts.

I have also put in a Kidd trigger job kit (polymer housing) on one rifle and I think that's far more cost-effective at $105 than a complete trigger unit. I've also had a trigger reworked by Brimstone Gunsmithing. I think that was about $35 and is also excellent, although I think I like the Kidd trigger job kit better. If you're looking for a bench rest trigger, though, I'd bet that the Kidd two-stage is superb. Tony Kidd is like the Prince of Darkness when it comes to triggers.

IMHO, Kidd makes some really outstanding 10-22 upgrade parts. I'm a huge fan.