Is the Remington 597 now superior to the Ruger 10/22?

[HetchHetchy]

A Marlin model 60 was my first firearm at age 10 and it has had untold thousands of rounds put through it and it has taken several truckloads of small game and varmints. I then got my first 10/22 back in 1992 which has been built into three different configurations. It is probably my most-used rifle and has also had untold thousands of rounds put through it and has also accounted for truck loads of small game and varmints. I also got a Remington 597 in 1999 so I have a good many years with all three rifles being discussed. Today, the Marlin is in storage somewhere and hasn't been shot in years. Same for the Remington. Not only am I still trying in vain to wear out the 10/22, one of my favorite rifles but it has three brothers and another will be bought soon.

I'd love to know where all these inaccurate 10/22's are because I've never seen one. IMHO, there are lots of myths surrounding these guns and most are unfounded but I think I understand where they originate. I will say that MY 597 outshoots both my stock 10/22's and my Marlin 60 but the difference is negligible.

1. They are inaccurate. Hogwash. They are perfectly acceptably accurate for what they are and that is an inexpensive, rugged and reliable plinker. The fact that they can be made much more accurate with aftermarket additions should not imply that they are poor shooters out of the box. Fact is, Clark Custom Guns created the heavy barrel 10/22 craze by crafting them into purpose built machines for competition. Building race guns by improving what was there, like any other competition gun, not fixing what was broken.

2. You have to replace everything to get a decent rifle. The fact that folks DO replace nearly every part in a custom build should not imply that they were poor from the start. IMHO, this comes from Marlin 60 shooters who think that because folks replace a bunch of stuff on 10/22's that they're somehow inferior. They are not. Newsflash, nobody spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars building a custom gun off a piece of crap. Fact is, they are excellent rifles out of the box that can be made better and that is what people are doing. Making them better. Not fixing a clunker. The 10/22 can become ANYTHING the individual wants it to be and the same cannot be said for the competition.

3. They have poor triggers. Nearly everything these days has a poor trigger, especially autoloaders, because of irresponsible shooters and frivolous lawsuits. Thank the lawyers, don't' blame the manufacturers. The 10/22 is no different, the 597 and Marln 60 are no different. At least, not according to my trigger scale. The big difference being that you can get a great trigger out of the Ruger for $40 or spend as much as $300 and get a competition grade trigger. Can't do that with either the Marlin or the Remington.

4. The basic carbine is not sized for adults. I don't know where this one comes from. It has the same LOP as just about every other standard length Ruger rifle, including the walnut sporter. Same barrel as well, except for a few distributor specials.

5. They are poorly finished. Another bogus notion. For a couple of years, Ruger was doing a blasted finish on the barrels and a wrinkle finish on the receivers. They never switched from bluing to "paint". Apparently some folks can't tell the difference between matte bluing and paint. This was a cost cutting measure. They have since gone back to the previous teflon coated receiver and brushed finish barrels. What folks need to keep in mind is that the 10/22 has NOT increased in price relative to inflation, making the 10/22 more affordable today than it was 20yrs ago.

6. The polymer trigger group was a down grade. Another bogus whining point. Firstly, both the Marlin and Remington offerings are no better. Secondly, they aluminum housings weren't that great. It's not like they were finely polished and blued steel. They were teflon coated or clear anodized aluminum and with any amount of use, they started looking like crap. No problem for the new polymer housings, which are also made to more precise tolerances. I find nothing to complain about here.

1) Stock 10/22s simply aren't as accurate as M60s on average. I suspect there are reasons for this. The m60 has the superior micro-grooved barrel and a better stock trigger. Might be other factors as well.

3) Stock 10/22 triggers aren't too good. That's precisely why Ruger sells an aftermarket BX trigger package for 65 bucks (75 from Brownells). It would be better if they simply built guns with the decent trigger to begin with.

4) It's not sized for me. I do agree that the LOP of the Sporter is the same as the Carbine, but both are too cramped for me. My Remington 552 for instance fits far better.

5) Unless they're "stainless", 10/22 barrels are painted today. Would you prefer the term "coated"?

10/22 prices were getting silly for a while. Base models were nearing 2X of the 597 and M60. Most gun prices are dropping these days, including the 10/22s. The 597 and M60 are not from what I can tell -- they were already fairly priced.

In 1986 I bought a brand new 10/22 carbine for $89.99. M60s were the same price at the time In 2014 I bought a new M60 for $149.99 when 10/22s were going for $250+ You do the math.

Ruger 10/22s seem to have three things going for them: 1) Outstanding magazines, 2) They are extremely reliable, 3) There's tons of aftermarket parts for them. Its competitors have other strengths.

 

[HetchHetchy]

I think shooting before the Clampout is a great idea! I am from Slim Princess 395 in Bishop and we usually go shoot in the Owen's Valley before the Clampout and then stow the weapons and get our Clamp on!

De La Guerra y Pacheco #1.5 here. Not very firearms friendly from what I see. I did leave a doins' one Saturday morning to go plinking (22LR) with two other clampers one time. Made sure I shot-up all the ammo I had brought. Once we had returned, someone saw a rifle case in one of the other clamper's vehicles and got his panties in a twist.

 

[Llama Bob]

1) Stock 10/22s simply aren't as accurate as M60s on average. I suspect there are reasons for this. The m60 has the superior micro-grooved barrel and a better stock trigger. Might be other factors as well.

The LVT sporter is essentially the same price as other 10/22s, and it has the target trigger and improved barrel. Shooting from field positions, I don't notice any difference between them and my tricked out CZ455 in terms of accuracy with similarly priced ammo. The difference on the bench is maybe 1/2 MOA.

Realistically, the vast majority of shooters are not going to pay for ammo that reaches the accuracy potential of any .22 auto. You don't see a lot of RWS and Eley on the line. 10/22 tend to do fine with CCI standard, which makes for a nice reasonably priced combo. Mini-mag was arguably better in some guns, but is still hard to find.

Ruger 10/22s seem to have three things going for them: 1) Outstanding magazines, 2) They are extremely reliable, 3) There's tons of aftermarket parts for them. Its competitors have other strengths.

That's a pretty huge advantage, certainly in anything with a rapid-fire string.

 

[HoosierQ]

In my opinion, one of the selling points of the 10/22 is the ease of disassembly. It's not quite as easy as say an AR-15 but it's pretty close. It is very easy to keep clean. As such, mine has performed flawlessly. The 10-round flush mag is another big plus vs a 7 rounder that protrudes. I think the Model 60 is also very, very good. Not as easy to take apart but it's hard to dispute a 15-round tube.

I know nothing of the Remington. I feel I know more now and am glad to hear that Remington is doing something right.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

No, I'm not pleased by the plastic parts going on the plain jane 10/22 these days but it fills a niche owing to its extreme adaptability, reliability and ruggedness over time. That isn't to say that the Marlin or Remington offerings aren't every bit as good (or better) for most purposes. Most Mod. 60s I've shot will out shoot the Ruger out of the box and at a lower price. I'm not familiar with the Remington.

It mostly comes to what you value most highly in your pick of .22 autoloader. I took my 12 year-old daughter plinking last Friday and we brought along my 31 year-old 10/22 that has had abuse heaped upon it and that had not been cleaned or lubed in her lifetime (at least). With a BSA red dot on top, I couldn't reload the factory 25 rounders fast enough for her. As filthy as it was, it choked on the cheap Remington bulk ammo a few times and she got pretty fast at clearing the stoppages.

When we got home I broke her down and had her back to spec in under 45 min. And I know if she's fed CCI Mini Mags from a factory mag the reliability will approach darn near 100%.
Although I've always had luck with the cheap Condor mags I bought in 1985 too, the heavy duty hi cap Ruger factory BX-25s really keep me in the 10/22 camp these days as I'm contemplating buying my daughters new ones to keep their Crickets and ARs company in the safe.

 

[jmr40]

Both my Remington 552 (semi-auto) and my Remington 572 pump will shoot rings around any stock 10/22. I'm fairly certain a stock 597 will out-shoot a stock 10/22 (even with the sporter stock.) I'll have to run a test sometime. I'm also sure a Marlin 60 will out shoot any 10/22.

A sample 10-22 LVT target. I don't have any photos, but I've shot some sub 1/2" groups with the same ammo at 100 yards.

No, I'm not pleased by the plastic parts going on the plain jane 10/22 these days

The plastic parts replaced cast aluminum parts that were painted. They were made that way since the beginning. The plastic is far, far more durable and with no paint to chip off.

I understand the dislike for the standard Ruger Carbine version. But I count exactly 100 different versions of the 10-22 listed on Ruger's website. They offer several models that address shortcomings of the original. Check it out.

http://ruger.com/products/1022/overview.html

Stock 10/22s simply aren't as accurate as M60s on average

I've had several Marlin 60's dating back to 1970. I've had a couple of 10-22's that were poor shooters. But on average I can't tell any difference and the stock 60's can't hang with the target 10-22's. The Marlin that I got for Christmas in 1970 has been inoperable for about 20 years. Broken parts and will cost more to repair than it's worth. The 10-22's with far more rounds through them are still working.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

The plastic parts replaced cast aluminum parts that were painted. They were made that way since the beginning. The plastic is far, far more durable and with no paint to chip off.

jmr40 While I can rationally understand this, I don't like the plastic vs. aluminum parts. The road-to-plastic-hell began with the butt plates and it hasn't stopped since. To me it looks cheap on a formerly (mostly) metal and wood firearm.

It's only last year that I purchased a polymer-framed weapon (Ruger LC-9s), which I like a great deal, BTW.

 

[CraigC]

1) Stock 10/22s simply aren't as accurate as M60s on average. I suspect there are reasons for this. The m60 has the superior micro-grooved barrel and a better stock trigger. Might be other factors as well.

3) Stock 10/22 triggers aren't too good. That's precisely why Ruger sells an aftermarket BX trigger package for 65 bucks (75 from Brownells). It would be better if they simply built guns with the decent trigger to begin with.

4) It's not sized for me. I do agree that the LOP of the Sporter is the same as the Carbine, but both are too cramped for me. My Remington 552 for instance fits far better.

5) Unless they're "stainless", 10/22 barrels are painted today. Would you prefer the term "coated"?

1. Maybe, maybe not but it has nothing to do with Marlin's microgroove marketing hype. Actually, Ruger builds a very good barrel but the chambers of their .22 autos can be a little large. Setting the barrel back and recutting the chamber fixes this.

3. Stock 10/22 triggers are what one should expect for a $200 plinker. The Volquartsen target hammer is a perfectly viable fix for under forty bucks.

4. As I said, the LOP on the 10/22 is the same as ever other Ruger rifle at a standard 13.5". The 552 has stock dimensions borrowed from their centerfire rifles/shotguns.

5. This is simply incorrect. Blued barrels are blued and have NEVER been painted, coated, etc.. They are blued, period. As I said, for a couple of years they were blued over a blasted finish. Now they are brushed again. They have always been blued, not coated or painted.

New takedown, blued.

 

[entropy]

From an accuracy perspective, the 10/22 isn't horrible, but when my son wanted to trade his Remington 552 for my 10/22, I didn't mind doing it. He wanted a light, handy .22 rifle that he could put a light on (it's in a Tapco stock) for raccoon, and I originally built it for him for a cheap trainer. (When I built it for him, all the .22 AR copies weren't out, and he planned on going into the Army.) I got a nice trip back in time to my learning precision rifle shooting with a Remington 572. The 552 sucks to clean compared to the 10/22, but over the years, I've cleaned just about every model of .22 rifle made. I am not fond of cleaning 597's, but the one I've shot was plenty accurate.

 

[HetchHetchy]

5. This is simply incorrect. Blued barrels are blued and have NEVER been painted, coated, etc.. They are blued, period. As I said, for a couple of years they were blued over a blasted finish. Now they are brushed again. They have always been blued, not coated or painted.

Maybe Ruger stopped painting their non-stainless 10/22 barrels but they CERTAINLY were coated at one point, "period."

Interesting comparing the overall length of a 597 with a 20" barrel and a 10/22 Sporter with a 22" barrel. The 597 is 1/2 an inch shorter overall than the long barreled 10/22 Sporter. That gives some insight into why the 597 feels "adult sized."

Reguer should create a version of the 10/22 with an adult-sized LOP.

 

[Cannibul]

Two of my Ruger 10/22 barrels are blued over a brushed finish. The other one is blued over a beaded finish. It's a factory threaded barrel.

 

[CraigC]

Maybe Ruger stopped painting their non-stainless 10/22 barrels but they CERTAINLY were coated at one point, "period."

Wrong. Prove it. For a couple of years they had a wrinkle finish receiver and a matte blued barrel but were NEVER coated.

That gives some insight into why the 597 feels "adult sized."

The LOP of the 597 is a half inch longer.

The LOP of the 572/552 is 1/8" longer. Both have a comb too high for iron sights.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive gotta say ive never seen a ruger barrel painted. It would probably be more expensive to coat them in any kinda decent paint, than it would be to batch dip them in bluing solution.

The stock difference was why i always preferred my 597 to the 10/22 in handling, the grip and forend were a nicer shape imo.

 

[HetchHetchy]

Wrong. Prove it. For a couple of years they had a wrinkle finish receiver and a matte blued barrel but were NEVER coated.



The LOP of the 597 is a half inch longer.

The LOP of the 572/552 is 1/8" longer. Both have a comb too high for iron sights.

That I doubt. As I said above a 10/22 with a 22" barrel is 1/2" longer than the 597 with a 20" barrel...

The 552 and 572 come with both regular and high-comb stocks...

 

[HetchHetchy]

Ive gotta say ive never seen a ruger barrel painted. It would probably be more expensive to coat them in any kinda decent paint, than it would be to batch dip them in bluing solution.

The stock difference was why i always preferred my 597 to the 10/22 in handling, the grip and forend were a nicer shape imo.

I dunno about that. Using some sort of powder coating with barrels being coated by a robot or screen of powder and then run through a tunnel oven would be quick and cheap...

 

[CraigC]

That I doubt. As I said above a 10/22 with a 22" barrel is 1/2" longer than the 597 with a 20" barrel...

The 552 and 572 come with both regular and high-comb stocks...

So the websites are wrong? The Ruger is 13.5" and the Remington is listed at 14", which is actually a little long compared to most rifles.

Wrong again. The 552 and 572 have come with high comb stocks ONLY for as long as I can remember. Of course, I've had a 572 for nearly 20yrs as well.

I dunno about that. Using some sort of powder coating with barrels being coated by a robot or screen of powder and then run through a tunnel oven would be quick and cheap...

Really doesn't matter what you "dunno", Ruger 10/22 barrels have never been coated, always blued. I "dunno" about your knowledge of the manufacturing processes. If a coating was cheaper than bluing, I'm quite certain the American series of rifles would be coated instead of polished and blued. I think I'll trust those who actually know and have been there.

 

[HetchHetchy]

So the websites are wrong? The Ruger is 13.5" and the Remington is listed at 14", which is actually a little long compared to most rifles.

So you didn't actually measure? Again, a 10/22 with a 22" barrel is .5" longer than a 597 with a 20" barrel. You do the math -- the receiver on a 597 isn't 1.5" longer.

Wrong again. The 552 and 572 have come with high comb stocks ONLY for as long as I can remember. Of course, I've had a 572 for nearly 20yrs as well.

Remington 572 with "normal comb" stock. Quite common, at least on the used market:

Remington 552 with "normal comb" stock. Google is your friend. Quite common, at least on the used market:



I own one of each.

Really doesn't matter what you "dunno", Ruger 10/22 barrels have never been coated, always blued. I "dunno" about your knowledge of the manufacturing processes. If a coating was cheaper than bluing, I'm quite certain the American series of rifles would be coated instead of polished and blued. I think I'll trust those who actually know and have been there.

"Quite certain", aye? That I doubt because Ruger has already been spanked on the 10/22 for using overly cheap finishes. Perhaps they didn't want to make the same mistake on the American?

Your certitude and error on the 552/572 stocks brings your comments about the Ruger barrel finish into question. Before you surmise those are custom stocks, I suggest you do a bit of research.

 

[CraigC]

Take a deep breath, it'll be alright. Unlike yourself, I don't have to Google everything to respond to a post. I didn't say they were NEVER made with a low comb stock, because I know they did. I wished I had looked for an older used rifle after I bought mine. What I said is that they currently do not and have not for a good many years. At least 20, by my count. Forgive me for being under the impression we were talking about new guns.

I'm awaiting proof that Ruger painted barrels.

It's rather comical that you would tout the 597 as having better finishes and deride the Ruger for having cheap finishes.

1. Ruger has always done a brushed polish on their guns and only had a couple of years where they did bluing over a blasted finish. The 597 has ALWAYS been matte blued.

2. Ruger anodized their receivers until 1968 and from that point on, they did a Teflon coating. Except for the couple years when they did a wrinkle finish. Remington has also ALWAYS used some sort of spray on coating. Ruger's stainless guns still have a clear anodized receiver.

3. Ruger changed to a polymer trigger housing only a few years ago. The 597 has ALWAYS had a plastic trigger housing and the early magazines were cheap ABS plastic.

 

[cdb1]

I'm not a fan of either, I like the Model 60 better. But to say the 597 is better quality is hogwash. I've also never seen a 10/22 with a painted barrel.

 

[Elkins45]

My model 60 (a Glenfield) was a birthday gift from my mom and it was stolen in 1991. I already owned a 10/22 by then so I didn't replace it. Both were accurate enough for my needs, but I would rather detail strip and clean a 10/22 10 times before I would want to remove and replace all those E clips on the Marlin once.

 

[Gun Master]

Rem. 597 or Ruger 10/22

The Marlin Model 60 beats the pants off both of them in every category.
Case closed IMHO.

 

[CraigC]

Ever taken one apart?

 

[Gun Master]

Disassembly / Reassembly Marlin 60

Nope, but should it become necessary, I've got my handy dandy guide.

 

[Elkins45]

Nope, but should it become necessary, I've got my handy dandy guide.

Does your guide help you find the tiny E clips when they go flying across the room?

I would vastly prefer a 60 over a 597. One real advantage the 60 has over both of the others is that you can't get to the range and discover you've forgotten the magazine

 

[benEzra]

I bought a used 597 on a whim a few years ago; I believe it is one of the earlier models. I bought the upgraded scope base from Remington and put a 2.5x scope on it.

Pro: It is by far the most accurate .22LR that I have ever shot. It also has the feel of a much larger rifle.

Con: It is also the most finicky .22LR that I have ever shot. To work reliably, the tension of the bolt guide rods has to be just right (too tight, and it jams), it has to be ammo that it likes, and it has to be kept well lubricated. The factory 10-round magazine (updated model with the circle) SUCKS; crummiest magazine of any .22LR I have ever shot. I think the magazine body is aluminum, and it likes to bind the cartridges and the follower unless *it* is also lubricated; if it's not, sometimes it won't let you put more than 7 or 8 rounds in as the follower jams on the way down, then jams again on the way up. I bought a Remington branded 30-rounder and a no-name knockoff of same; the former mostly works if the rifle is clean, the latter mostly doesn't.

But when it works, the accuracy almost makes up for the reliability frustrations. It is probably more accurate than a basic 10/22, but the 10/22 probably has the edge in reliability, and I like the 25-round magazines vs. the Remington single-stack 30, which is long and unwieldy. The flush-fit Ruger mag also kicks the Remington 10-rounder.

There is some aftermarket support for the 597 from Volquartsen, and I have read that upgraded bolts and fire control parts greatly improve reliability. But there isn't much in the way of aftermarket stocks and magazines/accessories for the 597.

If I were going to get another 597, I'd buy new, I think, since the new ones probably have some of the gremlins worked out.