Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/5/2011 3:52:54 AM EDT
| I was wondering what it would take to have an Impressive grouping with a 22? Meaning to those guys that are really good what would impress u? I assume it would have to be no closer than 100 yds. Probably more? Just for fun then we/ I can go attempt it? |
| A guy at work claims he can do a ten shot group at 200 yds all day long about the size of a tin of chew. Sometimes smaller. I don't know if its true or not. I haven't seen it in person. As soon as I get a chance to go to the range I will test it out though. My new rugr Target tactile will do around an inch all day long at 100 yds. With cci standards. I haven't gone past that yet. But for out. Of the box I think its the best 400 bucks I ever spent |
|
Quoted: A guy at work claims he can do a ten shot group at 200 yds all day long about the size of a tin of chew. Sometimes smaller. I don't know if its true or not. I haven't seen it in person. As soon as I get a chance to go to the range I will test it out though. My new rugr Target tactile will do around an inch all day long at 100 yds. With cci standards. I haven't gone past that yet. But for out. Of the box I think its the best 400 bucks I ever spent .22LR is an accurate round, but at that distance, I'd like to see it for myself. Lots of folks brag on their accuracy, only a few can really do something impressive. I put 2 bullets through the same hole with only two shots - standing, offhand, with my Glock 21 at about 25 yards. (yes, I'm THAT good). Problem is, I can't repeat it to save my life!  Everyone gets a few lucky groups now and then. |
|
Long ago when I was younger, I regularly got sub minute groups at 100 yards in formal matches with my Remington 40X. 22.
I once talked to the manager of the Remington Custom Shop and he told me they wouldn't let a .22 40X out the door unless it grouped 3/4" at 100 yards. With my Anschutz match rifle I shot groups of 1/2" or slightly less in formal matches at 50 yards with Eley Match ammo. There was a man I competed with who regularly shot 10 round groups at 100 yards of 1/2" or even slightly less. He had an Olympic grade Anschutz rifle that'd been match conditioned by an American Olympic team gunsmith. He shot Eley Match ammo. He used a top grade Leupold scope. He was a just plain great shot, who placed high at Camp Perry often. |
|
I have a bone stock Ruger 96 (lever action) that I can ring the 6" plate at 100yds with all day using iron sights. Not as impressive as shooting submoa groups but its not bad using irons.
With a little work shooting 1" at 100yds isn't a stretch for a decent barrel by any means. |
|
so that's about 3 inches I guess? so 200 yards, that's minute and a half, with no wind and everything else "on" I guess it's very doable. I do a lot of 200 yard shooting but not for groups.
te]Quoted: A guy at work claims he can do a ten shot group at 200 yds all day long about the size of a tin of chew. Sometimes smaller. I don't know if its true or not. I haven't seen it in person. As soon as I get a chance to go to the range I will test it out though. My new rugr Target tactile will do around an inch all day long at 100 yds. With cci standards. I haven't gone past that yet. But for out. Of the box I think its the best 400 bucks I ever spent[/quote] |
|
Quoted:
A guy at work claims he can do a ten shot group at 200 yds all day long about the size of a tin of chew. Sometimes smaller. I don't know if its true or not. I haven't seen it in person. As soon as I get a chance to go to the range I will test it out though. My new rugr Target tactile will do around an inch all day long at 100 yds. With cci standards. I haven't gone past that yet. But for out. Of the box I think its the best 400 bucks I ever spent That dude's dead soon from cancer if he's going through that many 10" tins of chew. CCI standard is a decent round if you get a good lot. It is in no way a real match quality round though. To get small groups at 200 yards (realistic sub 5") you will need some kind of match quality and cost ammo (like Eley Match/Tenex) and a rifle that can do it. On top of that you would need absolutely perfect conditions which come around about 3 times a year. Unless this guy also has a 200 yard underground tunnel too! |
im leavin for work now. when i get there first thing im doin is askin the guy where i can get some 10" tins of chew!!! lol
|
My club runs a league that shoots 100 yards prone rimfire. Our X ring is 1" and the 10 is 2". It is a 40 shot match
The better shooters will shoot 400's and I have seen a 400 37 X but I struggle to get one 400 a season and normally average about 397. You need good equipment,good skills, good ammo and a bit of luck . Only so much you can do if the wind is messing with you. Anybody can randomly shoot a great 5 round group but when you are throwing 10 shots each at 4 targets every week all summer long lots of stuff can happen. Compared to centerfire ammo even the best rimfire ammo leaves a lot to be desired |
|
.
By the way, is your question about good marksmanship or rifle/equipment/ammo purchases?  I have rifles that prevail in the static disciplines but am most impressed with someone that has good shooting fundamentals.
A five shot group into one inch offhand is impressing me more than some old fart ( in my age-group ) putting all rounds into 1/8" at 100 from a bench, spending half his pension in doing so. |
|
Quoted:
...you never really hear about CZ rifles, just their pistols. Au contraire`, mon cher! 
CZ rimfires have a very nice following in arfcom! Many of us own the American model, the one with the threaded bbl for use with a can. If CZ would get off the can & crank up both their marketing as well as their production, their line might well rival both Marlin & Ruger in sales, IMO. I speak of their 452 models, not their newer 453 models. |
|
There are a lot of stories out there, people say their buddy can put ten in the same hole at 200 yards, etc. In truth, there are some people who are exceptional shooters. But, even if one is a great shot there are still a lot of variables that will come into play. Ammo is a very big factor. I was reading about the US Olympic shooting team and how they went to one of the match ammo factories to test ammo for the team. They shot many hundreds of rounds just to find the right batch of ammo that was consistent. Then, when they had the batch they liked best they bought 1.5 MILLION round of it to take home. With this they then spent months working with the shooters and the rifles to get everything tuned in.;
So, your buddy's cousin can shoot 1/4" groups off hand with iron sights at 100 yards. I suggest he joint the Olympic team so he can beat everyone in the world and show the rest of us how its done. It takes top notch equipment, the best ammo, a natural shooter, and a ton of practice to be a great shot....consistently day in-day out. |
|
Did you mean the 455?
Quoted:
Quoted:
...you never really hear about CZ rifles, just their pistols. Au contraire`, mon cher!
CZ rimfires have a very nice following in arfcom! Many of us own the American model, the one with the threaded bbl for use with a can. If CZ would get off the can & crank up both their marketing as well as their production, their line might well rival both Marlin & Ruger in sales, IMO. I speak of their 452 models, not their newer 453 models. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A guy at work claims he can do a ten shot group at 200 yds all day long about the size of a tin of chew. Sometimes smaller. I don't know if its true or not. I haven't seen it in person. As soon as I get a chance to go to the range I will test it out though. My new rugr Target tactile will do around an inch all day long at 100 yds. With cci standards. I haven't gone past that yet. But for out. Of the box I think its the best 400 bucks I ever spent That dude's dead soon from cancer if he's going through that many 10" tins of chew. CCI standard is a decent round if you get a good lot. It is in no way a real match quality round though. To get small groups at 200 yards (realistic sub 5") you will need some kind of match quality and cost ammo (like Eley Match/Tenex) and a rifle that can do it. On top of that you would need absolutely perfect conditions which come around about 3 times a year. Unless this guy also has a 200 yard underground tunnel too! I agree with this-I have about 90 rounds of CCI Green Tag(I've been told it's CCI Standard valocity with tighter quality control). My Remington Model Five shoots tighter groups with Winchester bulk(XpertHV) and similar groups with federal bulk. I can't imagine the "culls" from ammo like that. |
|
Check out the Sako in the posts at the end of this thread by Septic.
Sako 22 He built it. I have handled the weapon, and fired it. It will do it... but, just like anything else, performance costs, and that rifle "costed"... 
|
|
There are very few firearms that are more accurate than some of my .22LR's within 100 yards. Of course good, consistent ammo helps, but the biggest factor is the shooter. Of course, they are built for accuracy alone. However, there are some terrible rimfires in terms of accuracy out there, but they are usually fine for tin cans. (i.e. 10/22, AR rimfire conversions, etc).
|
|
Quoted: An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier.  I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. I really wouldn't call it a silly statement and my experience is far from limited. I am not bashing on the 10/22. However, it does have it's limitations and shortcomings, as does any other gun for that matter. I am well aware that you can make a 10/22 very accurate by addressing a few of it's issues. Seen them, shot them. But it is far from typical for a factory gun, and addressing the trigger issues only highlights the POI wandering issues inherent to the 10/22 more. I'm not saying that a cheapie little marlin is better or the best, but it will outshoot an out of the box 10/22 and most modified 10/22's any day of the week, at least if I am behind the trigger. That being said, on a well set-up 10/22 I'd get equal groupings, but seldom better unless we are looking at a gun that lives to be shot from the bench. .2" groups at 50 with a 10/22? You gonna post these up? I'd have those on my fridge like I just took home an A+ on my History test or something. I spend enough time in the grass with .22LR to prompt heavy metal testing on my blood once per year. I will not claim to be an expert, but I am far from unqualified to make these observations. No, I do not want a cookie. My paper-punching rigs are mainly bolt guns and I have always avoided the 10/22 but I am going to give them a shot this season. I'm just being careful to get exactly what I want out of it. If it wasn't for the wife needing to shoot it, I'd get a Gemtech integrally suppressed model, but that would require an NFA trust for both to use. If your 70's vintage 10/22T is doing that, I'd offer to buy yours or similar. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. I really wouldn't call it a silly statement and my experience is far from limited. I am not bashing on the 10/22. However, it does have it's limitations and shortcomings, as does any other gun for that matter. I am well aware that you can make a 10/22 very accurate by addressing a few of it's issues. Seen them, shot them. But it is far from typical for a factory gun, and addressing the trigger issues only highlights the POI wandering issues inherent to the 10/22 more. I'm not saying that a cheapie little marlin is better or the best, but it will outshoot an out of the box 10/22 and most modified 10/22's any day of the week, at least if I am behind the trigger. That being said, on a well set-up 10/22 I'd get equal groupings, but seldom better unless we are looking at a gun that lives to be shot from the bench. .2" groups at 50 with a 10/22? You gonna post these up? I'd have those on my fridge like I just took home an A+ on my History test or something. I spend enough time in the grass with .22LR to prompt heavy metal testing on my blood once per year. I will not claim to be an expert, but I am far from unqualified to make these observations. No, I do not want a cookie. My paper-punching rigs are mainly bolt guns and I have always avoided the 10/22 but I am going to give them a shot this season. I'm just being careful to get exactly what I want out of it. If it wasn't for the wife needing to shoot it, I'd get a Gemtech integrally suppressed model, but that would require an NFA trust for both to use. If your 70's vintage 10/22T is doing that, I'd offer to buy yours or similar.The 1970's version is not a T model since they did not exist back then. My T model was from the mid 90's. I shot so many groups under .3" that it wasn't all that special any more. I don't know how many sub .2" groups I have pictures of now. I did keep the fun pictures like this one. 
50 yds from a rest with my model T. Wolf MT. I shot 3 flies that day. Two them just punched right through the target without the nice splatter. This is a bench rest target I shot last year that I have on photobucket. The group in the sighter target is just over .2 ctc. I have no idea where it is to measure for you. 
|
|
I'll agree with the assessment of " silly statement", Dan.
If the slip fit barrel was a problem, you wouldn't be able to make a sub 1 MOA gun out of it with a barrel swap. It's just not logical. Wandering POI? Marlins are well known to have good barrels, certainly among the best of value priced .22s. I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. I really wouldn't call it a silly statement and my experience is far from limited. I am not bashing on the 10/22. However, it does have it's limitations and shortcomings, as does any other gun for that matter. I am well aware that you can make a 10/22 very accurate by addressing a few of it's issues. Seen them, shot them. But it is far from typical for a factory gun, and addressing the trigger issues only highlights the POI wandering issues inherent to the 10/22 more. I'm not saying that a cheapie little marlin is better or the best, but it will outshoot an out of the box 10/22 and most modified 10/22's any day of the week, at least if I am behind the trigger. That being said, on a well set-up 10/22 I'd get equal groupings, but seldom better unless we are looking at a gun that lives to be shot from the bench. .2" groups at 50 with a 10/22? You gonna post these up? I'd have those on my fridge like I just took home an A+ on my History test or something. I spend enough time in the grass with .22LR to prompt heavy metal testing on my blood once per year. I will not claim to be an expert, but I am far from unqualified to make these observations. No, I do not want a cookie. My paper-punching rigs are mainly bolt guns and I have always avoided the 10/22 but I am going to give them a shot this season. I'm just being careful to get exactly what I want out of it. If it wasn't for the wife needing to shoot it, I'd get a Gemtech integrally suppressed model, but that would require an NFA trust for both to use. If your 70's vintage 10/22T is doing that, I'd offer to buy yours or similar.The 1970's version is not a T model since they did not exist back then. My T model was from the mid 90's. I shot so many groups under .3" that it wasn't all that special any more. I don't know how many sub .2" groups I have pictures of now. I did keep the fun pictures like this one. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/Picture108.jpg 50 yds from a rest with my model T. Wolf MT. I shot 3 flies that day. Two them just punched right through the target without the nice splatter. This is a bench rest target I shot last year that I have on photobucket. The group in the sighter target is just over .2 ctc. I have no idea where it is to measure for you. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/DSCN0757.jpg I asked for it, I got it. Color me impressed.  That is far above and beyond what I have seen in my own experience with any stock-barreled 10/22. Got a tag for that fly?wanna show us the gun now? |
|
Quoted: I'll agree with the assessment of " silly statement", Dan. If the slip fit barrel was a problem, you wouldn't be able to make a sub 1 MOA gun out of it with a barrel swap. It's just not logical. Wandering POI? Marlins are well known to have good barrels, certainly among the best of value priced .22s. I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.  Did you even read the entire post in question? If not go read it again. I'm not looking for a pissing match. I'm pointing out two facts. 1. Stock rugers (and many modified ones too) are not good shooting guns. 2. A good shooter can work a crappy trigger (marlin) and outshoot the guy slapping or jerking the $200+ penultimate trigger. This alone is the biggest point here. My marlins are not competition guns at all, but I will outshoot most of the rugers unless there is a good shot using it. No I am not an expert on the Ruger. Never said to be. Have shot plenty of Very accurate and very poor 10/22's. Stock guns tend to shoot from decent to poor. The guy I called out rightfully proved himself correct, but I do not consider a 1970's 10/22 to be an example of Ruger's current production at all. I suspect that he is a practiced shot himself, a bad shooter couldn't do that regardless of equipment. All firearms have compromises and weaknesses. The marlins shoot straight, but their barrels are timed poorly and their receivers appear to have been made during the Philadelphia Experiment. The slip barrel is a good thing. The tension issues are the drawback. Why do so many aftermarket items address it if it wasn't an issue? Who replaces sub 1 MOA barrels? Modified rugers are not neccisarily shooters either. Their entire aftermarket has turned into a huge copycat business. Dragging a 10/22 through a catalog and slapping them together with a sears toolkit on your kitchen table will make it look like an annodized beast in a laminate stock, but it will still shoot like a stock 10/22. Nice place. Point out an obvious flaw in the 10/22 and get dog-piled.  I did mention that I was interested in buying one, but wanted to address some of the issues myself. I'm pretty set on building an accurate 10/22, but I'm certain that I know what to expect going into this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. I really wouldn't call it a silly statement and my experience is far from limited. I am not bashing on the 10/22. However, it does have it's limitations and shortcomings, as does any other gun for that matter. I am well aware that you can make a 10/22 very accurate by addressing a few of it's issues. Seen them, shot them. But it is far from typical for a factory gun, and addressing the trigger issues only highlights the POI wandering issues inherent to the 10/22 more. I'm not saying that a cheapie little marlin is better or the best, but it will outshoot an out of the box 10/22 and most modified 10/22's any day of the week, at least if I am behind the trigger. That being said, on a well set-up 10/22 I'd get equal groupings, but seldom better unless we are looking at a gun that lives to be shot from the bench. .2" groups at 50 with a 10/22? You gonna post these up? I'd have those on my fridge like I just took home an A+ on my History test or something. I spend enough time in the grass with .22LR to prompt heavy metal testing on my blood once per year. I will not claim to be an expert, but I am far from unqualified to make these observations. No, I do not want a cookie. My paper-punching rigs are mainly bolt guns and I have always avoided the 10/22 but I am going to give them a shot this season. I'm just being careful to get exactly what I want out of it. If it wasn't for the wife needing to shoot it, I'd get a Gemtech integrally suppressed model, but that would require an NFA trust for both to use. If your 70's vintage 10/22T is doing that, I'd offer to buy yours or similar.The 1970's version is not a T model since they did not exist back then. My T model was from the mid 90's. I shot so many groups under .3" that it wasn't all that special any more. I don't know how many sub .2" groups I have pictures of now. I did keep the fun pictures like this one. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/Picture108.jpg 50 yds from a rest with my model T. Wolf MT. I shot 3 flies that day. Two them just punched right through the target without the nice splatter. This is a bench rest target I shot last year that I have on photobucket. The group in the sighter target is just over .2 ctc. I have no idea where it is to measure for you. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/DSCN0757.jpg I asked for it, I got it. Color me impressed. That is far above and beyond what I have seen in my own experience with any stock-barreled 10/22. Got a tag for that fly?wanna show us the gun now? I need to clear some things up. The fly was shot by my stock ruger 10/22 T. I has a heavy factory barrel. That T rifle shot 247 10x on the USBR target LIKE the one shown. That fly was not shot by a stock 1970's vintage rifle. That rifle is nearly accurate enough to pull it off, but it cannot do it consistently. The model T can. The stock 10/22 shot .5" groups consistently at 50 yds. I have iron sights on it now and the best I can do is 1" at 50 with my old eyes. My new eyes might do better. 
The USBR target I posted is the model T with a new Kidd barrel and a B&C Anchutz style stock. I posted it because of your claim of better accuracy than "semi pimped out versions". I don't consider a barrel and stock more than semi custom. Same trigger and action as the original model T. 
|
|
I thought it sounded like you wanted a pissing contest.
You seemed to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, " with the slip fit barrel, a 10/22 can't shoot well". Such a statement is unsupportable. There are MANY examples to disprove the issue. As for your assertion that your Marlin shoots better than "pimped out" 10/22s, well I guess it MAY, but I suspect you haven't shot many well put together 10/22s. |
|
Quoted: I thought it sounded like you wanted a pissing contest. You seemed to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, " with the slip fit barrel, a 10/22 can't shoot well". Such a statement is unsupportable. There are MANY examples to disprove the issue. As for your assertion that your Marlin shoots better than "pimped out" 10/22s, well I guess it MAY, but I suspect you haven't shot many well put together 10/22s. No. Did not want a pissup, but I'm not backing down because you don't like my assessment of the 10/22. You think the 10/22 is great for your needs, did I argue against that? I'll correct you. With a stock barrel, a 10/22 will usually not shoot acceptably. Part of the blame is on the tension issue. The rest of the blame is because Ruger's barrel is just not an accurate barrel regardless of how it is attached. Upgraded barrels still often suffer from tension issues while correcting for the material and dimensional issues of the stock barrel. Slip fit is fine, good in fact. But Ruger's execution is poor. And I'll spell out again, plain and simple. And, I typically have a bit more humility than this, but to make the point; I shoot a shitty marlin better than most folks who shoot "pimped out" 10/22's. Ergo, many folks who buy/build high $$$ 10/22's still cant shoot. Buying a Porsche does not make you a race car driver...I've shot plenty of well done 10/22s and found them impressive (and seek one for my collection). I've made certain to point this out in every post, why do you choose to keep ignoring this? It's the same thing in Service Rifle where you have the guy with the Springfield Supermatch blaming everything but himself for his score. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An exception is the 10/22T... The only thing holding this rifle back is the shitty factory trigger. Once you fix that, they're pretty good and capable of 1-2 MOA at 100(match ammo) with almost no other work. Does the T model use the tension block as the standard model does for securing the barrel? This seems to be the biggest and most obvious detriment to the 10/22's accuracy. I mean, I can work with a crap trigger. My $99 marlin 795 with tech sights has an industrial, stapler-quality trigger, but has outshot 10/22s in all forms from basic to the target models to semi-pimped-out versions. And it has done it all cheap, dirty, and abused like a good little soldier. I don't mean to come across as condescending of the 10/22 either. I'm just speaking from experience. I am looking to buy one for my wife, who is a project appleseed orange hat. I like the factory's VLEH model, but she is more interested in the magnumlites from magnum research, which of course, cost an arm and a leg. I don't want to spend $500 - $800 to pattern rather than group.Your experience must be extremely limited to make a silly statement like that. My 10/22T shot consistent groups under .3" ctc at 50 yds. Many groups under .2" ctc at 50. This was not a tricked out 10/22, but the basic T model with trigger work. I have a 1970's vintage 10/22 that is stock except for trigger work and it shoots sub .5" groups at 50 with a scope. I really wouldn't call it a silly statement and my experience is far from limited. I am not bashing on the 10/22. However, it does have it's limitations and shortcomings, as does any other gun for that matter. I am well aware that you can make a 10/22 very accurate by addressing a few of it's issues. Seen them, shot them. But it is far from typical for a factory gun, and addressing the trigger issues only highlights the POI wandering issues inherent to the 10/22 more. I'm not saying that a cheapie little marlin is better or the best, but it will outshoot an out of the box 10/22 and most modified 10/22's any day of the week, at least if I am behind the trigger. That being said, on a well set-up 10/22 I'd get equal groupings, but seldom better unless we are looking at a gun that lives to be shot from the bench. .2" groups at 50 with a 10/22? You gonna post these up? I'd have those on my fridge like I just took home an A+ on my History test or something. I spend enough time in the grass with .22LR to prompt heavy metal testing on my blood once per year. I will not claim to be an expert, but I am far from unqualified to make these observations. No, I do not want a cookie. My paper-punching rigs are mainly bolt guns and I have always avoided the 10/22 but I am going to give them a shot this season. I'm just being careful to get exactly what I want out of it. If it wasn't for the wife needing to shoot it, I'd get a Gemtech integrally suppressed model, but that would require an NFA trust for both to use. If your 70's vintage 10/22T is doing that, I'd offer to buy yours or similar.The 1970's version is not a T model since they did not exist back then. My T model was from the mid 90's. I shot so many groups under .3" that it wasn't all that special any more. I don't know how many sub .2" groups I have pictures of now. I did keep the fun pictures like this one. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/Picture108.jpg 50 yds from a rest with my model T. Wolf MT. I shot 3 flies that day. Two them just punched right through the target without the nice splatter. This is a bench rest target I shot last year that I have on photobucket. The group in the sighter target is just over .2 ctc. I have no idea where it is to measure for you. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/DSCN0757.jpg I asked for it, I got it. Color me impressed. That is far above and beyond what I have seen in my own experience with any stock-barreled 10/22. Got a tag for that fly?wanna show us the gun now? I need to clear some things up. The fly was shot by my stock ruger 10/22 T. I has a heavy factory barrel. That T rifle shot 247 10x on the USBR target LIKE the one shown. That fly was not shot by a stock 1970's vintage rifle. That rifle is nearly accurate enough to pull it off, but it cannot do it consistently. The model T can. The stock 10/22 shot .5" groups consistently at 50 yds. I have iron sights on it now and the best I can do is 1" at 50 with my old eyes. My new eyes might do better. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/DSCN0780.jpg The USBR target I posted is the model T with a new Kidd barrel and a B&C Anchutz style stock. I posted it because of your claim of better accuracy than "semi pimped out versions". I don't consider a barrel and stock more than semi custom. Same trigger and action as the original model T. http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i307/batmanacw/DSCN0760.jpg I don't consider that more than moderately modified either. It is very nice. I'm pretty impressed with the B&C stocks. Thanks for stepping up and sharing. Respectfully, my claim to accuracy was in my practice working with less than stellar triggers on decently accurate guns against guns with great triggers, o.k. shooters, and wandering aftermarket barrels attached to them. From the get go I've made it clear that I have no hate on the 10/22, but find the stock barrels, and some aftermarket to be unacceptable. I'm not sure how you determined my level of experience from that, but I'll chalk that up to my cantankerous way of stating an opinion Which brings up your experience. Clearly you are an excellent shot and knowledgeable in good equipment, but get out a bit more this summer, there are some really BAD 10/22 builds out there. Just like AR-15's, open up the catalog and drag the rifle through it.I find it perplexing that a $100 marlin can come with a great barrel, with the rest of the gun being terrible, while the 10/22 itself is a great gun, but the barrel is terrible. It is a shame that the two competing attributes couldn't be had together to start with! Is it too much to ask for a good performing gun right out of the box without having to go semi-custom? Seems that Ruger at least used to be able to do it based on your examples. |
|
Quoted:
[/div][div]Respectfully, my claim to accuracy was in my practice working with less than stellar triggers on decently accurate guns against guns with great triggers, o.k. shooters, and wandering aftermarket barrels attached to them. From the get go I've made it clear that I have no hate on the 10/22, but find the stock barrels, and some aftermarket to be unacceptable. I'm not sure how you determined my level of experience from that, but I'll chalk that up to my cantankerous way of stating an opinion Which brings up your experience. Clearly you are an excellent shot and knowledgeable in good equipment, but get out a bit more this summer, there are some really BAD 10/22 builds out there. Just like AR-15's, open up the catalog and drag the rifle through it.[/div][div]
[/div][div]I find it perplexing that a $100 marlin can come with a great barrel, with the rest of the gun being terrible, while the 10/22 itself is a great gun, but the barrel is terrible. It is a shame that the two competing attributes couldn't be had together to start with! Is it too much to ask for a good performing gun right out of the box without having to go semi-custom? Seems that Ruger at least used to be able to do it based on your examples.[/div][div] [div] [/div][div] [/div][/div] [/div] snip! If you want a stock 10/22 that will run with a marlin on accuracy, you need to buy an old one. 1970 or before. They were phenomenal performers. Now, not so much unless its a T model. Then they can be pretty decent with a good trigger and shooter. I have always been a marlin fan. Just not of their semi auto triggers..... If you have one of their bolt guns, buy the rifle basix triggers and don't look back |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: [/div][div]Respectfully, my claim to accuracy was in my practice working with less than stellar triggers on decently accurate guns against guns with great triggers, o.k. shooters, and wandering aftermarket barrels attached to them. From the get go I've made it clear that I have no hate on the 10/22, but find the stock barrels, and some aftermarket to be unacceptable. I'm not sure how you determined my level of experience from that, but I'll chalk that up to my cantankerous way of stating an opinion Which brings up your experience. Clearly you are an excellent shot and knowledgeable in good equipment, but get out a bit more this summer, there are some really BAD 10/22 builds out there. Just like AR-15's, open up the catalog and drag the rifle through it.[/div][div][/div][div]I find it perplexing that a $100 marlin can come with a great barrel, with the rest of the gun being terrible, while the 10/22 itself is a great gun, but the barrel is terrible. It is a shame that the two competing attributes couldn't be had together to start with! Is it too much to ask for a good performing gun right out of the box without having to go semi-custom? Seems that Ruger at least used to be able to do it based on your examples.[/div][div] [div] [/div][div] [/div][/div] [/div] snip! If you want a stock 10/22 that will run with a marlin on accuracy, you need to buy an old one. 1970 or before. They were phenomenal performers. Now, not so much unless its a T model. Then they can be pretty decent with a good trigger and shooter. I have always been a marlin fan. Just not of their semi auto triggers..... If you have one of their bolt guns, buy the rifle basix triggers and don't look back Good advice. Yet another thing where "they don't make them like they used to" just like 90% of my rimfire collection. [div] [/div] [div] [/div] |
My 2008 Ruger 10/22 with standard factory barrel will give me nickle size groups at 50 yards with Federall 550 Bulk Pack ammo. This is using the scope & bipod on a bench of course. One of these days I'm going to have to get some match grade ammo and see what it can do.
|
|
Quoted:
I shot a dime sized, 5 shot group at 50 yards from prone with my iron sighted 513T once. Haven't done it again.  You might be surprised what a quality 22 will do with good ammo.I have an old Rem. 512 that will do that too, but it's limited by the shooter's aging eyesight. 
|
|
Quoted:
...get out a bit more this summer, there are some really BAD 10/22 builds out there. Just like AR-15's, open up the catalog and drag the rifle through it. a LOT of builds, be it for ARs, 1911s, 10/22s, motorcycles, cars or whatever are built for LOOKS and not PERFORMANCE. sometimes whoever's building it just doesn't know the difference, for example between a stock 10/22 triger, a stocker tht's been tuned up, one with Volquartsen parts and a KIDD trigger. they often think that whatever they have, or whatever they've shot "ain't that bad", because many people just never get the chance to shoot a nice rifle with a great trigger. so, no argument that there's some shitty builds out there, but usually the owners are perfectly happy with them. |
|
Quoted:
Set a stack of 5 pennies on an old card table. Impressive is removing all the pennies without scratching the table at 25 yards. I've lost a bit of money at this game...
Also, striking matches is always impressive My grandfather's favorite stories involve striking matches with a .22. I've never seen someone actually do it, but I saw my grandpa shoot well enough in his younger days to know what his skill was like before his body went downhill-I believe him. i'd still like to see it done though. |
Armory Sponsor