Well, it seems that everyone says that the Ruger has no faults, so I'll start by saying that I have one, and it's not complete junk or anything. I even like some things about it. However, since all of that has been covered, here's the flipside.
Ruger negatives:
1. Standard stock has WAY too much drop to use a scope properly.
2. Standard barrel is lousy. Good enough for irons, but if you get a nice scope, budget for a new barrel (and a new stock, of course).
3. Base-model wood stock is ugly and crude.
4. Prices keep rising, and at this point have crossed into the "silly" zone for the base model gun.
5. Standard sights are useless in low light.
6. Stovepiping is common on mine. Really picky about ammo. My 22/45 will cycle anything. The 10/22 should be able to do the same, but can't.
7. Magazine jams with ammo that has any oxidation on the bullets. Forget about shooting those old bricks from Dad's garage. Also jams if it gets fouled; I have to wipe it with a rag at the range.
8. Trigger is heavy.
9. The controls just plain suck. The safety is too far forward for normal fingers, the bolt lock/release button is the WORST thing I've ever used on a firearm, and the gun lacks last shot hold-open (a $50 aftermarket addition, if you want it).
10. The scope mount has to be screwed onto the receiver. Ruger says never use Loc-tite. But without Loc-tite, it shoots loose in 100-200 rounds (scratching the receiver in the process). I had to use Loc-tite, of course.
11. The receiver finish wears off or scratches very easily, at least on the black one.
A base-model Marlin 60 has an accurate heavy barrel, a laminate stock, and a grooved receiver, with nothing to screw on but the scope rings, all standard. The stock drop accommodates a scope quite well -- it's a good inch higher than the Ruger. It has last shot hold open, the safety is behind the trigger guard not in front, and the bolt release works easily, no tricks required to operate. The tube magazine is permanent (a negative for some things), but it also works better, especially with imperfect ammo. The base 60 also cheaper than the base 10/22, and the difference is widening. I just bought a new 60 for $120. I bought a base model 10/22 a couple years back for $180, and they've gone up.
I won't be buying another 10/22 except as the basis for a custom build. Too bad they don't sell a receiver and trigger group. That's all most people keep on the guns they call "10/22s". Even then, though, that bolt release and the safety still bug me. Currently, I'm not too interested in spending a grand on a blowback .22, so I won't be modifying the one I have, either.
Just a little reality check from someone who has a 10/22 racked next to 4 other .22LR rifles. Of all of them, the 10/22 is the one I am seldom interested in pulling out, even though I removed the scope and put on fiber sights that are visible and work with the standard stock.
It's kind of a neat little carbine for under the Jeep seat, and the detachable magazine works well for my state's DF&G laws, but it's really not up to the standards of my other semiauto Rugers, a Mini-14 and a 22/45 target model. Both are utterly reliable with any ammo I've tried, and I can use the 22/45 to shoot groups about like the 10/22, and it's a pistol.