Small Game Hunting - 22LR choice?

[I6turbo]

My main point is I'm no super shooter and I'm afraid of getting scammed on a used gun that I want to use almost every night for the next 40 years...

...I appreciated everyones comments and please keep them coming...

If you are going to use it almost 15,000 days, seems to me the wise thing to do would be to scrape up a few more bucks than your $300 limit, and get a nice new gun (CZ 452 American) that clearly is receiving the most and highest recommendations from a bunch of people here who own a bunch of guns of the type you're considering. Another penny per day would be money well spent. How much convincing do you require?

 

[CraigC]

This is it...if you want a gun to work out of the box get a model 60, if you want to work on it to get it to shoot straight out of the box buy all the aftermarket parts you can lay your hands on for a 10/22 and spend about 10x the price of a "good" rifle, and build yourself a good rifle....I would not say ford vs chevy....more like ford vs yugo....chevy vs trabant perhaps.

(doG how I hate 10/22's the most over rated pile of _____)....

sorry.....sorry....I just go off the deep end sometimes.

IMHO if you want new and an automatic as well as inexpensive, do a model 60, if you want new and cheap do a 10/22 (oops there I go again)....now if you want used and really fun, very little weight, but getting stupid spendy now try to find a Nylon 66, or the CRC...CDC....I don't remember the knock off of the 66, those are so great for hauling around the woods....they weigh nothing, shoot great (they are used so YMMV) Just a hoot. I generally do bolt guns but if I take an autoloader I grab the Nylon....I just love that thing.

And yet millions have been sold. The vast majority of which never have a wrench turned on them. You can keep repeating this nonsense but it won't make it true. I'm just going to repost my previous response.

Sorry but this is utter BS, bordering on trolling. Are you one of those intellectually lazy types who had a problem with one rifle and used that as an excuse to condemn 53yrs of Ruger rifles? If what you said was actually true, then it would be the only junk rifle that thousands of people use as the basis for a custom rifle.

They function just fine out of the box. People spend money on them to make them better. The fact that they do does not imply that there's anything wrong with them out of the box. It implies that the 10/22 is a better basis for modification than any other semi-auto. For one can spend a little money and have a semi-auto that shoots better than your precious CZ. Mine does, circles, in fact.

My first rifle was a Marlin model 60 when I was 8yrs old. I used it extensively until I was in my 20's. Killed countless small game and varmints with it. It was a great rifle, for the money, until it wasn't. Got my first 10/22 25yrs ago and it's still one of my favorite rifles. I now have six 10/22's and they all function beautifully.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

I've got a CZ 452, and did a 'Brooks Trigger Job' on it.

One of the best purchases I ever made.

They're really accurate, well made, and a great value.

 

[toivo]

Pass on that BX trigger from ruger. I played with one in the store and it was laughable. 1/8th of an inch of creep.

Still better than the stock trigger, though.

 

[fpgt72]

And yet millions have been sold. The vast majority of which never have a wrench turned on them. You can keep repeating this nonsense but it won't make it true. I'm just going to repost my previous response.

Sorry but this is utter BS, bordering on trolling. Are you one of those intellectually lazy types who had a problem with one rifle and used that as an excuse to condemn 53yrs of Ruger rifles? If what you said was actually true, then it would be the only junk rifle that thousands of people use as the basis for a custom rifle.

They function just fine out of the box. People spend money on them to make them better. The fact that they do does not imply that there's anything wrong with them out of the box. It implies that the 10/22 is a better basis for modification than any other semi-auto. For one can spend a little money and have a semi-auto that shoots better than your precious CZ. Mine does, circles, in fact.

My first rifle was a Marlin model 60 when I was 8yrs old. I used it extensively until I was in my 20's. Killed countless small game and varmints with it. It was a great rifle, for the money, until it wasn't. Got my first 10/22 25yrs ago and it's still one of my favorite rifles. I now have six 10/22's and they all function beautifully.

Millions have been sold because they are the most easy to modify gun....and perhaps thing on the planet.....and why is that....because they are built to such a low standard.....

Eh does not matter you are not going to change the mind of a rabid fanboi, and you are not going to change my mind. I have yet to handle one that worked without an aftermarket part of ten....and why to the try to make them "better" because you sure can't make it any worse.

 

[Captcurt]

Pass on that BX trigger from ruger. I played with one in the store and it was laughable. 1/8th of an inch of creep.

Thanks. I tried a Power Custom a few years ago and it was a waste of money too.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I bought my first and only 10/22 27 years ago. It functions just fine. It has a 8 to 10 lb trigger that goes click-clack. It has a stubby kinda ill fitting stock. It shoots closer to a 2" group at 50 yards than it doesn't a 1" with most ammo. I got what I paid for.....a gun that works.

 

[olkowsr]

Just for clarification.... haha

I said 30-40 years, but in reality if something new and innovative comes out at a low enough price... most likely I'd sell it and move on to the "latest and greatest" ..

Thanks for the comments guys.

Looking for that CZ to try every day!
- Ron.

 

[CraigC]

Millions have been sold because they are the most easy to modify gun....and perhaps thing on the planet.....and why is that....because they are built to such a low standard.....

Eh does not matter you are not going to change the mind of a rabid fanboi, and you are not going to change my mind. I have yet to handle one that worked without an aftermarket part of ten....and why to the try to make them "better" because you sure can't make it any worse.

Rabid fanboi? Name-calling to discredit dissension? I assume you consider yourself objective? Please. Your commentary is just patently false and nothing but trolling. The 10/22 was introduced in 1964, three decades before the aftermarket even existed. Contrary to your baseless rhetoric, the aftermarket came about due to a need for a highly accurate semi-auto for competition and because the Ruger's design was very well suited to modification. Not because it was a junker that needed fixing, which is absurd in the extreme. Sorry but nobody spends hundreds of dollars to make a POS function. To even suggest that millions of rifles are being rebuilt simply to make them function is ludicrous. The great advantage to the Ruger is that it can be mad einto anything the shooter wants, from an elegant walnut stocked sporter, to a tacticool configuration or a dedicated benchrest rifle and anything in between. The Marlin is whatever it is out of the box. The ONLY reason the Marlin sells more model 60's is because it costs half as much. I have always considered the 10/22 to be a better gun than the budget priced Marlin.

 

[CraigC]

Thanks. I tried a Power Custom a few years ago and it was a waste of money too.

Did you try adjusting it? I have Power Custom innards in several of mine and wouldn't be without them. The trigger is fully adjustable for let-off, pre-travel and over-travel. Their magazine and bolt releases are the best available. I adjust let-off down to around 2lbs.

 

[someguy2800]

I guess I have probably shot at least a dozen 10-22's, and all of them were stock and most were the base model with birch stocks and I never had any complaints with any of them other than that none of them were super accurate.

 

[cdb1]

Model 60 vs 10/22 always opens a can of worms. I was being diplomatic in my first post. I definitively believe the Model 60 is a better shooter with no mods. More accurate. They both suffer from horrific triggers.

 

[Skylerbone]

Bought my father a SS carbine back when which he modified extensively into a very nice shooter and last month he came full circle by ditching his Henry lever for yet another 10/22.

I'm down to a single 10/22, a TD model bought for my son. I freely admit I've done work to it at a grand total of 2 hours and zero cents.

The Take Down functioned as both intended and expected when delivered and so my primary reasoning for the work was to fully disassemble the rifle for proper cleaning and lubrication but I threw in a little bolt chamfering and sear modification while I had the guts out. Better than the BX trigger in my opinion and free. I had the stones (and the stones) to do it myself so why not.

I do recall a time when manufacturers made some heavenly, by today's standards, triggers which lawyers have modified for use by the least common denominators who also purchase firearms.

CraigC, I enjoyed reading your response for now a second time as reasoning devoid of feelings never gets old. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Even my CZ spent a little time on my bench to polish bolt innards and a spring swap but maybe I'm picky. Or I enjoy getting my hands dirty. Could be either.

 

[Captcurt]

Did you try adjusting it? I have Power Custom innards in several of mine and wouldn't be without them. The trigger is fully adjustable for let-off, pre-travel and over-travel. Their magazine and bolt releases are the best available. I adjust let-off down to around 2lbs.

I played with it for a while and sold it. Never met my standards.

 

[webrx]

Savage BTVS, accutrigger, bull barrel, accurate rifle. I paid $400 for mine, most accurate 22 I own, I dont have CZ, but I do have an old mossberg 340BB that also shoots really well for a sporter.

I like bolt actions for accuracy, not that you cant get an accurate SA, just that for me they lean toward shooting too quickly - my problem, not the rifles.

d

 

[fpgt72]

Rabid fanboi? Name-calling to discredit dissension? I assume you consider yourself objective? Please. Your commentary is just patently false and nothing but trolling. The 10/22 was introduced in 1964, three decades before the aftermarket even existed. Contrary to your baseless rhetoric, the aftermarket came about due to a need for a highly accurate semi-auto for competition and because the Ruger's design was very well suited to modification. Not because it was a junker that needed fixing, which is absurd in the extreme. Sorry but nobody spends hundreds of dollars to make a POS function. To even suggest that millions of rifles are being rebuilt simply to make them function is ludicrous. The great advantage to the Ruger is that it can be mad einto anything the shooter wants, from an elegant walnut stocked sporter, to a tacticool configuration or a dedicated benchrest rifle and anything in between. The Marlin is whatever it is out of the box. The ONLY reason the Marlin sells more model 60's is because it costs half as much. I have always considered the 10/22 to be a better gun than the budget priced Marlin.

Is calling a 10/22 a rabid fanboi a bad thing? You can call me a rabid CZ fanboi and I would say....well yup...that fits....what does that say about the 10/22 fanboi....are they ashamed, do they really know the rifle is just begging to have parts tossed at it to make it function on par with a gun that costs half as much.....hmmm, interesting point you bring up there....I never thunk it out that a' way.

Sorry duty calls....unless I get banned by people that can't take the cold hard truth I will be back.

 

[CraigC]

Is calling a 10/22 a rabid fanboi a bad thing?

Oh no, it's not bad at all. It only implies that 10/22 fans are "rabid" about a piece of junk you have to throw money at just to make it work. Which is to basically say that we're imbeciles. You don't like them, fine. Move on. That doesn't make those who do "rabid fanboys".

....are they ashamed, do they really know the rifle is just begging to have parts tossed at it to make it function on par with a gun that costs half as much.....

Sorry duty calls....unless I get banned by people that can't take the cold hard truth I will be back.

Please. Your "cold hard truth" is simply not congruent with reality. There's a huge aftermarket for the AR-15, does that mean they're garbage out of the box? Or does that indicate that it's such a good platform that is so easily customized that so many people do it. I'm going with the latter. Fact is, you couldn't do any of what is possible with the Ruger to the Marlin. So you had problems with the two you had. The first one was such junk that you bought another? Now you're going to condemn 53yrs and millions of rifles because of two duds? Sorry but your position just doesn't withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

 

[someguy2800]

Well I guess I am just going to have to go pick up a model 60 and put a set of Skinner peep sights on to find the truth for myself. Darn you high road!

 

[cdb1]

Fact is, you couldn't do any of what is possible with the Ruger to the Marlin.

That is a cold hard fact. If I were to buy a semi-auto .22 and planned on doing mods to it, there would only be one choice for me, a 10/22. On the other hand if were to buy a semi to shoot straight out of the box with no mods it would be a Model 60. My reasons are:
1) Though still horrible, stock Model 60 triggers are slightly better than stock 10/22 triggers, in my limited sampling.

2) I've also found Model 60's to be more accurate out of the box than 10/22's, again in my limited sampling.

I've also been reading Model 60 vs 10/22 arguments for years and realize my experience could be a statistical anomaly. In fact after reading so much about them I'd say the arguments are about 50/50. If it weren't for the fact I do have some experience I'd toss a coin.

 

[Crowman]

I live in the middle of a mountain hollar surrounded by a long horseshoe shaped ridge covered in oak and hickory trees. It is very dense and well stocked with everything from tree rats to coons and 'possums and bobcats and coyotes. Typical ranges for hunting run 30-75 yards. My preferred small game rifle is also my most accurate one. It out shoots both my Ruger 10-22 and Marlin 1897 CB.

I hunt small critters with a Browning T-bolt Sporter .22 LR. It is made from good satin finished walnut and blued steel, just like a classic Hunting gun. I use a M1907 brown leather military sling adjusted so I can slip my support arm through the loop for a rock steady hold. No cheap plastic stock here. It has the lines similar to a Ross sporter. Very svelt and sexy. Don't need a rail, and my scope of choice is a fixed power compact 1" tube Nikon 4x32 Rimfire Scope with 50 yard parallax correction. This scope is light weight and sized appropriately for rimfires. It is a hunting scope.

With this combination, I can lead and pot squirrels on the run up a big oak tree. The T-bolt is incredibly fast cycling from the shoulder with no loss of sight picture. It is a straight pull bolt action that cycles almost as fast as a Ruger 10-22. It is perfectly balanced and handles well. The 4x scope has a wide field of view making shots in foliage easy. This is a fast system.

Most folks over scope their rimfire rifles to the point that over magnification reduces field of view and missed opportunities. You don't need big behemoth scopes with microscopic accuracy except maybe to competitively punch paper targets at a range from a benchrest. Waaaaaa too bulky to tote up and down mountain ridges. There you want the lightest, most compact package possible. I don't bother with bipods in deep woods for that reason. Hunting wide open plains would be different.

A buddy of mine had a Marlin 39 that he put a 14x scope on and couldn't see what he was shooting at until he dialed back to the lowest magnification. Plus the abomination was heavy, bulky and was a centerfire scope. After he shot my rifle, he ditched his scope and ordered a Nikon 4x32 just like mine from Midway USA. Bigger is not always better. Just sayin'.

 

[CraigC]

Marlins 'may' shoot more accurately on average but I think the accuracy of the Marlins, as well as the inaccuracy of the Rugers is way overblown. The rifle that I have taken the most small game and varmints with is a 10/22 with a factory carbine barrel. Never had a 10/22 that wouldn't do 3/4" to 1"@50yds with bulk ammo. Having replaced a worn out Marlin with a 10/22 years ago, there has been nothing the Marlin would do that the Ruger wouldn't also do. Neither are what I would call a tackdriver but both are acceptably accurate for their purpose. Neither would be my first choice for making head shots on squirrels at 50-75yds and for multiple reasons. The distinction is that I can optimize the Ruger for any purpose but the Marlin is what it is out of the box. Despite the rhetoric, either rifle should function out of the box.

I also believe that the Ruger is a better made rifle. I owned and carried a Marlin for years and I know a rifle built to a price point when I see one. There are very good reasons why the Ruger costs more than the Marlin and they're all very obvious. Especially today. I handled some 795's at my first Appleseed and they were very obviously very cheaply made. You can also get the Ruger in myriad configurations from the factory, including some very nice walnut stocked models. Not so with Marlin. For those reasons, were I leaving the rifle 100% stock, I would still choose the Ruger. The cost difference is also not what some folks make it out to be. Either Marlin is going to be $160 and a base 10/22 carbine is around $220.

Most folks over scope their rimfire rifles to the point that over magnification reduces field of view and missed opportunities. You don't need big behemoth scopes with microscopic accuracy except maybe to competitively punch paper targets at a range from a benchrest. Waaaaaa too bulky to tote up and down mountain ridges. There you want the lightest, most compact package possible. I don't bother with bipods in deep woods for that reason. Hunting wide open plains would be different.

Agreed.

 

[fpgt72]

That is a cold hard fact. If were to buy a semi-auto .22 and planned on doing mods to it, there would only be one choice for me, a 10/22. On the other hand if were to buy a semi to shoot straight out of the box with no mods it would be a Model 60. My reasons are:
1) Though still horrible, stock Model 60 triggers are slightly better than stock 10/22 triggers, in my limited sampling.

2) I've also found Model 60's to be more accurate out of the box than 10/22's, again in my limited sampling.

I've also been reading Model 60 vs 10/22 arguments for years and realize my experience could be a statistical anomaly. In fact after reading so much about them I'd say the arguments are about 50/50. If it weren't for the fact I do have some experience I'd toss a coin.

Very true....if you want to turn it into.....well anything from something that will shoot arrows to a gatling gun and anything in between there is one choice.....they do make something that can be turned into a fun toy....and you know nothing wrong with that.

You can even toss tons of money into them and make it as accurate and reliable as the Model 60.

 

[Crowman]

Marlins 'may' shoot more accurately on average but I think the accuracy of the Marlins, as well as the inaccuracy of the Rugers is way overblown. The rifle that I have taken the most small game and varmints with is a 10/22 with a factory carbine barrel. Never had a 10/22 that wouldn't do 3/4" to 1"@50yds with bulk ammo. Having replaced a worn out Marlin with a 10/22 years ago, there has been nothing the Marlin would do that the Ruger wouldn't also do. Neither are what I would call a tackdriver but both are acceptably accurate for their purpose. Neither would be my first choice for making head shots on squirrels at 50-75yds and for multiple reasons. The distinction is that I can optimize the Ruger for any purpose but the Marlin is what it is out of the box. Despite the rhetoric, either rifle should function out of the box.

I also believe that the Ruger is a better made rifle. I owned and carried a Marlin for years and I know a rifle built to a price point when I see one. There are very good reasons why the Ruger costs more than the Marlin and they're all very obvious. Especially today. I handled some 795's at my first Appleseed and they were very obviously very cheaply made. You can also get the Ruger in myriad configurations from the factory, including some very nice walnut stocked models. Not so with Marlin. For those reasons, were I leaving the rifle 100% stock, I would still choose the Ruger. The cost difference is also not what some folks make it out to be. Either Marlin is going to be $160 and a base 10/22 carbine is around $220.



Agreed.

I agree with you about the Marlin and Ruger 10-22's. Both mine will group around 3/4"-1" at 50 yards. I really like the 10-22's. Mine sports a Nikon 4x32 as well. It is a great plinker and will roll tennis balls down range. Mine is from the 1970's and is a well made firearm. And it is a bit more accurate than my Marlin. It's just that the 1897 CB is just plain fun and nastalgic as all heck. It has a Williams target aperture rear sight. However, the Browning T-bolt is a cut above both and you can make running head shots on squirrels at 50 + yards. I have a spinner target with squirrel head size targets that I set down on the woods side of the dam and I shoot from my glider rocker from the back deck. The targets are 50 yards downhill. Unless I just mess up, I'll hit the head-sized spinners 10 for 10. That rifle is scary accurate. I like my Marlin 1897 CB and 10-22 for fun plinking, but for serious hunting, I'll take the Browning T-bolt.

 

[someguy2800]

I have always wanted one of those T-bolts but the price is more than I can stomach for a 22. I think the last one I saw was $650.

 

[cdb1]

Marlins 'may' shoot more accurately on average but I think the accuracy of the Marlins, as well as the inaccuracy of the Rugers is way overblown. The rifle that I have taken the most small game and varmints with is a 10/22 with a factory carbine barrel. Never had a 10/22 that wouldn't do 3/4" to 1"@50yds with bulk ammo. Having replaced a worn out Marlin with a 10/22 years ago, there has been nothing the Marlin would do that the Ruger wouldn't also do. Neither are what I would call a tackdriver but both are acceptably accurate for their purpose. Neither would be my first choice for making head shots on squirrels at 50-75yds and for multiple reasons. The distinction is that I can optimize the Ruger for any purpose but the Marlin is what it is out of the box. Despite the rhetoric, either rifle should function out of the box.

I also believe that the Ruger is a better made rifle. I owned and carried a Marlin for years and I know a rifle built to a price point when I see one. There are very good reasons why the Ruger costs more than the Marlin and they're all very obvious. Especially today. I handled some 795's at my first Appleseed and they were very obviously very cheaply made. You can also get the Ruger in myriad configurations from the factory, including some very nice walnut stocked models. Not so with Marlin. For those reasons, were I leaving the rifle 100% stock, I would still choose the Ruger. The cost difference is also not what some folks make it out to be. Either Marlin is going to be $160 and a base 10/22 carbine is around $220.

Hard for me to argue with most of the points you are making. In fairness I also don't care for the shape of the butt on the basic model 10/22, I'm sure others like it. And though I do prefer my Model 60 over a 10/22 it is a piece of junk compared to my CZ 512.