Ruger 10/22 Carbine - 20" or 18.5" barrel?

[TheOtherOne]

If I'm reading all the features right, the only difference between the Ruger 10/22 and the Ruger 10/22 Carbine is 1.5" in the barrel and about $12.

I'm all about saving money so I'm leaning towards the slightly shorter version, but which would you go with?

 

[Fumbler]

You might catch the aftermarket bug and switch the barrel anyway, so if that is the case save your money.

If you dont plan on changing it then get the long one, it balances better and has a longer sight radius.

 

[Longbow]

The barrel band makes the 10/22 look ugly. I like the look of the 10/22 better. It's worth the extra $12 in my opinion.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I kind of like the barrel band but if the 20" version is more balanced and better to shoot then it's probably worth $12.

 

[Longbow]

I've read also, that the barrel band excerts some pressure on the barrel, making it less accurate.

 

[Eightball]

Mine has a barrel band (I never knew that signified a difference in anything), and shoots 1 MOA easy at 100 yards. I don't complain about any supposed "loss in accuracy", since 1MOA=good in my book. To each their own.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Ideally, a .22 would be 12-14". But if you don't want the hassle of making an SBR, it would ideally be 16.1". The rest is wasted space & weight. Obviously, the 18.5 is closer. Just M.O.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you're going to put peep sights on it, or shoot primarily with the factory sights, go with the longer barrel.

If you're going to scope it, pick the one that looks the best to you. There's virtually no practical difference if you're not going to use iron sights.