The Mossberg Plinkster was my very first gun I received as a teenager. It's very light and is a good rifle for kids and it's inexpensive. I think I recall seeing the price sticker on the box was $89.95, mind you this was back in the early 00's.
The quality is low, but it doesn't matter because the gun just runs well. The receiver is pot metal and is painted, not blued. The barrel's bluing is laughably cheap and the stock is polymer. The sights are okay, but I think the sight radius could be a bit longer. I know Tech Sights makes a rear sight that clamps down on the rail, but I don't see the point of spending so much on such a cheap rifle.
Last time I shot it was a couple years ago with some CCI Blazer. There were several FTF's and I'm not sure if it was the ammo or if the pin was having issues from all the times I dry fired it as a kid not knowing what damage that does to a rimfire. I checked the chamber sometime earlier this year and didn't find any reason to believe that it was damaged, so I believe it was the ammo.
If there's anything negative I can say about it is I don't like any of the magazines. The 10 rounders feel so cheap and light that they won't last up to hard use and the 25 rd extended magazines are ugly and look cumbersome; I've never felt the urge to spend money on them and from what I've seen and read about them, they're just plain junk. I also wish that Mossberg or somebody would make aftermarket wood stocks as that would make the gun's aesthetics improve drastically.
For the cost, I can't think of many other semi-auto .22 rifles that compete with the 702 Plinkster. Maybe the Marlin Model 60, but with those today you're taking a real chance.
Part of me wants to say if you're buying a youth a .22 for their first rifle, but can't spend over $200, to get the US made Model 60 because I think they'll last longer and because they're so nice looking that they'll appreciate it more as they get older as opposed to the ugly duckling 702, but again, there's reliability to consider.
