The New or the Old?

[Dunross]

So, I want to get a Ruger 10/22 International. There's just something about Mannlicher stocks that does it for me, and (rationalizing) I need a second 22lr repeater anyway. I have a good 10/22 carbine I bought back in the early '90's for every day use. I prefer blued steel to stainless for this particular gun.

But which one to get? One of the new ones running in the $350-$400 range?

Or the one a local LGS has that was made in 1968? I looked up the serial number on the Ruger site so it really is from that time period. They're asking $500, but I may be able to get them to come down some on it. It appears to be all original and is in excellent shape. Not NIB, but appears to have spent most of its fifty years in someone's gun cabinet and not in the field.

Was the quality of the Internationals back in the 1960's sufficiently better to be worth the extra money?

What do you think?

 

[Speedo66]

I can’t say as to that particular gun, but most guns from 50-60 years ago were better made, in my opinion.

Most had more handwork, better wood and polishing, and MIM wasn’t in use as far as I know. Guns were expected to work out of the box, not after 500 “break in” rounds.

 

[jmr40]

I can't speak to the 1960's Rugers, especially the Internationals. But the 10-22's made in the last 10-12 years are far more accurate than any of the previous ones I've owned going back to the 1980's. The 10-22's have always had a cast aluminum receiver with a black coating, it's not like you're going to get a polished steel receiver with the older one. And the new synthetic trigger group is a lot tougher than the old cast aluminum trigger group. Triggers are a lot better too.

There is a good chance the wood may be better on the older one, but that depends on the individual gun.

And FWIW I don't care for the standard carbine 10-22. They make almost 100 different variations of the 10-22. The sporters are my favorite. These don't really cost much more than the standard model. Last time I checked prices it was only $5 more. I don't know why more people don't buy these.

https://ruger.com/products/1022Sporter/models.html

This is my favorite. It shoots every bit as good as my CZ.

https://ruger.com/products/1022Sporter/specSheets/1235.html

 

[Dibbs]

Generally, given there's a choice, I prefer new. IMO, there's less chance of getting a factory defect,
new, than there is of your inheriting somebody's problem, used. And if you get a factory defect, generally,
with a new product, you have a better chance of it being put to rights.

 

[JWF III]

I would go old myself. The 10/22 went through some changes back around 04 or 05 (iirc). You can search this, and other, message boards for 10/22 problems. Most of the times (probably 10 to 1) someone that has a real bad experience with 1, it’s a newer model. Conversely, someone, like me, that has never had any malfunctions, even through thousands upon thousands of rounds, is usually shooting the older models.

I don’t know exactly what changes they went through. 1 I’ve been told is the trigger housing went from metal (aluminum) to plastic. Whatever these changes were, they were done to lower the cost to manufacture them.

Mine is an early to mid 80s model, bone stock carbine. It”s got some scratches from when I installed a scope myself, as a young teen. I haven’t fired the gun in probably 15 years. But $500 wouldn’t even get me to think about selling it.

Wyman

 

[FL-NC]

I have a 10-22 that was gifted to me almost 31 years ago. It is the only one I have ever owned or fired. Those stocks look nice, but I can't justify replacing or modifying a gun that I hit 1" pasties with at 50 yards. The only thing I did to that rifle is I added a 4x scope and base, and bought some more mags. Its kind of a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" situation.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Get the less expensive one. I generally buy used and old because they are (maybe) better but also less expensive than new.

I think the older one is overpriced. I've only ever owned full stock 10/22s that I bought used and never paid close to 500.

 

[Bill Raby]

All this talk about the old stuff being better is a bunch of garbage. I know, new guns suck and old guns are perfect. They said the same thing in 1950. Yes, the guns made 80 years ago were a lot more hand crafted. They also cost a whole lot more also. In 1873 a Colt SAA cost about a month of the average person's pay. That would be about $4000+ today. More than double the MSR price of a new one now. Spend that much on a revolver and you are get a high end custom job that is much higher quality than anything that ever came out of the Colt factory. Pretty much the same deal for any other guns. The quality on guns has not gone down. What has changed is that you now have the option of buying a cheap gun. The high quality guns are still being made. Just like they did decades ago. They cost a lot. Take Weatherby rifles for example. In the 1950s a Mark V was a very high quality rifle and rather expensive. Now you can get a Vanguard that is cheap and not nearly as nice. Does not mean that Weatherby quality has dropped. Mark V is still just as nice and still expensive. But now you have an option of a lower quality and price rifle. When you compare guns of the same price range from now and decades ago, the new guns are BETTER than the old ones. When people compare new guns to old ones and say the new ones come up short they are comparing guns that took a few weeks of work to pay for to guns that take a few days of work to pay for.

 

[Ks5shooter]

New may be more accurate ,but older has the cool factor

 

[wanderinwalker]

It's a Mannlicher stock, buy whichever one has the better piece of wood!

My ONLY preference toward the older one would be if it still has the original flat magazine release. The modern extended versions are significantly easier to use, but the old style isn't prone to inadvertent magazine drops if you're carrying the rifle around.

Otherwise Ruger's 10/22 carbine barrels are generally a roll of the dice in terms of how well they'll actually shoot. Add to that the full length stock and who knows what you'll actually get out of either rifle. My current 10/22 is a Carbine sitting in a Hogue stock, and it really isn't all that accurate. With ammo it really, really likes, it's good for just over an inch at 50 yards for 5-10 shots. I really like the looks of the longer barrel sporters jmr40 mentions, but every time I come close to going for it, I remember how disappointing the accuracy of my 10/22 Carbine is.

Full-disclosure: I own 3 CZ-452s, a new model Browning T-Bolt sporter and a Remington 514 in addition to the 10/22 Carbine. One of the CZs is a Full Stock version, which shoots absolutely great with either Eley Target or SK Standard .22LR match ammo.

 

[P5 Guy]

I'd buy the older one if the shop owner is willing to deal. Anything sweetens like a spare magazine, a couple boxes of ammo, nice gun sock. Anyone of those added would be full price worthy.

 

[BigBlue 94]

Saw three int'l rugers at the Topeka gun show a month ago. None were over 500, but none under 400.

I have an old model carbine, with metal butt plate on the stock. I also have a stainless version bought new around 2005. Both run like champs on pretty much any ammo, but I've not shot them as precision types. Just plinkers

 

[CraigC]

All this talk about the old stuff being better is a bunch of garbage.

I disagree, it depends on what it is. Fit & finish has been in sharp decline over the last 100yrs due to more automation and less hand work. This is well known and well documented. However, newer guns are generally more accurate. Factory barrels are much better than they used to be. Not only has fit & finish declined but there are guns made 50-100yrs ago that are simply no longer in production. Older guns have an appeal all their own and there's no getting around that.

However, generally speaking, the "older is better" mantra doesn't really apply to Ruger. There are older Rugers that are desirable because they were no longer made but not necessarily because they were "better" made. Ruger has not seriously altered the way they build their guns. In many ways, they have improved them. In this particular case, I see no reason to buy the old one over the new one. The post-`68 guns are coated, rather than anodized but they're still aluminum and look like crap when they start wearing. The polymer trigger housing was an upgrade. The material is tougher and the color is in it, rather than on it.