Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rimfire Forum (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Soon to join the 10/22 Club (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1164456)

Rys2k8Altima 12-30-2009 18:56

Soon to join the 10/22 Club
 
I was at the range today, and was just curious as to how much the 10/22's were at the range( Dick's Sporting goods had them for 199.99) Well they had a basic model for 239.99 which was way more then I was willing to spend seeing as how I wasn't even looking for a gun at this time. I started to walk away and then the counter guy said, we just took a older 10/22 in on trade. I decided to take a look at it. Its got some minor marks on the stock, other then that, it looks like its in good condition. I ended up buying it for 130 dollars. Is this a good price?

DJ Niner 12-30-2009 23:17

Yes it is. I'd have paid that for any lightly used 10/22, assuming I had the money at all. :supergrin:

Actually, I think you may have gotten a better deal than buying a new one, as the older ones had many parts that were metal vs. the current plastic substitutes. I don't mind buying/using guns that were DESIGNED with plastic parts/frames (this IS Glock Talk, after all), but when a gun has metal parts and suddenly the manufacturer changes over to plastic, it just seems to cheapen the product. Warped parts (look closely at the barrel band on those new 10/22s), mold marks (trigger housing), and even casting marks on the bottom of the barrel's front sight band. It's sad.

CajunBass 12-31-2009 02:12

I'd have jumped on any 10/22 for $130.00, new or used, unless it looked like it had been dragged behind a truck, and I might have taken it even then.

Rys2k8Altima 12-31-2009 10:40

Its got a small chip on the stock. a few dents on it as well. The barrel has a small mark on it, and the ring that holds the barrel to the stock has a similar wear mark as well. Other then that it looks good. I too dont have any extra cash, so I had to put a deposit on it, and Ill pick it up on next Thur. Oh well gives me another excuse to go to the range and shoot it, along with my Glock, and Hi Standard H-D Military

Rys2k8Altima 12-31-2009 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Niner (Post 14448053)
Yes it is. I'd have paid that for any lightly used 10/22, assuming I had the money at all. :supergrin:

Actually, I think you may have gotten a better deal than buying a new one, as the older ones had many parts that were metal vs. the current plastic substitutes. I don't mind buying/using guns that were DESIGNED with plastic parts/frames (this IS Glock Talk, after all), but when a gun has metal parts and suddenly the manufacturer changes over to plastic, it just seems to cheapen the product. Warped parts (look closely at the barrel band on those new 10/22s), mold marks (trigger housing), and even casting marks on the bottom of the barrel's front sight band. It's sad.


Im glad that I went with an older one that has metal parts then. I didnt really know that. I didnt do any research on this gun aside for the whole modifications aspect. I really wasnt even looking for one at the time

JFrame 12-31-2009 13:31

I would have paid $130 just for the receiver -- screw the barrel and stock! :supergrin:

.

Rys2k8Altima 12-31-2009 15:07

Well good then... I made the right decision. I just picked up a 25 rd banana mag for it today at Gander Mtn

deputy tom 12-31-2009 17:10

Sounds like a great deal to me.Good luck with your new rifle.tom.

Rys2k8Altima 12-31-2009 19:07

I keep on trying to buy stuff for this damn gun now. Then I talk myself out of it

Rys2k8Altima 01-07-2010 20:20

http://glocktalk.com/forums/picture....pictureid=2457

Rys2k8Altima 01-07-2010 20:24

I love this gun. I probally put 200 rounds thru it all of which were dead on. Only problem I had was with the mag. It would jam up and not feed the next round, so I had to use the Bananna mag. When I got home from the range, I took it apart and found a TON of lead and other waxy build up caked inside the mag. Cleaned it out and loaded it up no problem. It will eject every round now, but I dont know how well it will when its actually being fired.

DJ Niner 01-08-2010 01:23

Looks like you got a heckuva deal!

And solved the magazine problem promptly, also! Good job! :thumbsup:

Rys2k8Altima 01-08-2010 22:18

My Tapco Stock came in today. http://glocktalk.com/forums/picture....pictureid=2464 I really like it. Only problem I see is the barrel seemed kinda loose. I took the top cover off and resecured it, and it seemed a bit tighter. Did anybody else have this issue?

DJ Niner 01-09-2010 00:41

The barrel seemed loose in the receiver, or the barrel and receiver combo seemed loose in the stock?

Rys2k8Altima 01-09-2010 07:48

The receiver seemed loose in the stock

DJ Niner 01-09-2010 23:27

Is the large screw in front of the magazine well tightened snugly? When I installed my stock, the barrel was riding a little high in the channel until I put the top cover on; then everything was tight as a drum.

Rys2k8Altima 01-10-2010 09:19

Everything is tight. Ill take another look at it later today and see if there is anything I can do

Frog1 01-10-2010 18:36

I put mine in the Tapco made for the .920 barrel. Then I put a washer between the stock and gun. It floated the barrel. I installed a Volq target hammer and auto release. I added an extended mag release. I bought a couple of the Tactical Innovations adjustable 25 round mags. It is now as much fun to play with as my M&P 15-22. A used one for $130.00 is a great deal. Plenty of options.

Rys2k8Altima 01-10-2010 18:39

Damnit... I really want to go shooting now! Come on next pay day

Rooster Rugburn 01-10-2010 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Niner (Post 14448053)
Actually, I think you may have gotten a better deal than buying a new one, as the older ones had many parts that were metal vs. the current plastic substitutes. I don't mind buying/using guns that were DESIGNED with plastic parts/frames (this IS Glock Talk, after all), but when a gun has metal parts and suddenly the manufacturer changes over to plastic, it just seems to cheapen the product. Warped parts (look closely at the barrel band on those new 10/22s), mold marks (trigger housing), and even casting marks on the bottom of the barrel's front sight band. It's sad.

I tended to agree about he polymer trigger assembly. Mine is Al. I saw an article by someone who tested the new polymer design. They beat the rifle up pretty good and determined the polymer was actually more durable. One of the notable observations was a heavy blow to the trigger guard assembly. The aluminum version was bent, but the polymer version flexed back out and was usable. They beat it up pretty good, but the polymer still seemed to be worth the change. I'll try to find the link and ETA.

Found it:

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-1022.htm


Quote:

Ruger has a fixture set up to do their drop tests on revolvers and pistols. We used this same fixture to drop a four and one-half pound weight directly upon the trigger guard portions of both the aluminum and polymer trigger housings. The video shows the results clearly. A standard 10/22 RB weighs in at about five pounds, so this 4.5 pound steel weight pretty much replicates what would happen to a 10/22 rifle if dropped directly upon its trigger guard onto a solid surface, such as steel or concrete. As the video and pictures show, the polymer unit takes the abuse much better than does its aluminum counterpart. From a height of two feet, the aluminum unit was badly bent. The polymer unit was undamaged. From three feet, the aluminum unit was cracked, and bent in enough to render the rifle inoperable. The polymer unit was only scratched. From four feet, the aluminum unit shattered, and the polymer unit suffered a small crack, but was still serviceable, and would not impede the operation of the rifle at all. Also, this was the same polymer unit that had already endured the two foot and three foot drops. We had to use a new aluminum unit for each of the tests. I was convinced. The polymer trigger housing is much tougher than the aluminum part. Still, being a traditionalist, old habits die hard for me. However, I do have to admit that realistically, polymer was the right choice that for that part, and is an improvement over the aluminum part, even if I do hate to admit it. Another plus for the polymer is that if it is scratched, it is the same color underneath, whereas the aluminum shows a scratch vividly.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.