[kimberguy2004]

Does anyone have experience with these? I can't find any reviews that don't come across like a paid advertisement. Just wondering if they were reliable or is Colt still the worlds largest manufacturer of unfinished firearms..

[faawrenchbndr]

Take a look in the "rimfire" page,......there is a bit of info there.
Would love to have one!

[MrMurphy]

Having handled both the Colt and the S&W.....

I'm buying the S&W eventually.

[Apocalypse_Now]

Why not just buy the $190.00 .22lr conversion kit for your 5.56 AR15 from CDNN?

You DO have a 5.56 carbine, right? If not, priorities are skewed..

[kimberguy2004]

Originally Posted by Apocalypse_Now

Why not just buy the $190.00 .22lr conversion kit for your 5.56 AR15 from CDNN?

You DO have a 5.56 carbine, right? If not, priorities are skewed..

Because the .223 barrel is .224", .003" bigger than the standard 22lr barrel and accuracy is guarranteed to suck right out of the box..

[Kentak]

Originally Posted by kimberguy2004

Because the .223 barrel is .224", .003" bigger than the standard 22lr barrel and accuracy is guarranteed to suck right out of the box..

And, I think you can get lead shavings in your gas hole.

I *know* that's something I don't want.

[faawrenchbndr]

My plan is to eventually build a dedicated 22lr upper.

[Wyoming]

Originally Posted by Apocalypse_Now

Why not just buy the $190.00 .22lr conversion kit for your 5.56 AR15 from CDNN?

You DO have a 5.56 carbine, right? If not, priorities are skewed..

The real reason is today AR's have faster rifle twist, 1-9'' or faster. The 22LR is .223'' and will work down the bore of .224''. When the M16 had a 1-12'' I used to get reasonable accuracy with a conversion unit on a full auto. A quick 10 round burst would put them in a 2'' cluster at 50 yards off hand. We didn't even think to use 22 Conversion units for accuracy but cheap shooting.

The 22 LR uses a 1-16'' rifle twist as standard. A 1-9'' would probably cause poor performance.

Has anyone use a 22 conversion unit on todays faster twist barrel? If so lets hear what happen.

A whole upper with the correct barrel for the 22 LR would be a good way to go for a conversion unit.

BTW, my dealer got two Colts AR 22s and I had a chance to shoot one before buying. One work perfectly and tha other did not. I told him to take the good one and I fixed the other.

[thisaway]

Originally Posted by Wyoming

The 22 LR uses a 1-16'' rifle twist as standard. A 1-9'' would probably cause poor performance.
Has anyone use a 22 conversion unit on todays faster twist barrel? If so lets hear what happen.

I have been using a Spike's kit in my "Frankenrifle". It has a 16" 1-9 Bushmaster medium-heavy barrel. With the cheap "bulk box" .22LR, I can get 1.5-2" groups at 25 yards, well suited to plinking or cheap close-range practice. I have not tried it on paper beyond 25 yds, though. YMMV.


P.S. The thing is fun as hell, so I'm getting lots of trigger time!

[Wyoming]

P.S. The thing is fun as hell, so I'm getting lots of trigger time! [/QUOTE]

That is the bottom lime with a conversion units.

[Glocks&Ducs]

From just about all non-paid accounts, the Colt in 22LR is a solid piece of junk. Many people wonder why Colt allowed their name to placed on that rifle. It isn't made by Colt, and it isn't performing very well. I think most people are gravitating towards the S&W M&P 15-22, although some of them did have ejector problems at first. I haven't heard of many complaints about them lately, and mine has worked perfectly so far.

[deMontacute]

It is garbage. To begin with, it is not made by Colt, it is made by the Airsoft company Umarex. Colt just stamps their name on the side.

Seriously, the thing is about the quality you would expect from an airsoft company... In other words Crap! I don't know why Colt wanted to put their name on such a piece of junk.

ETA: LOL, I just read the response above me. Guess I'm one of those "Many people"...

[hdbob]

heard alot of bad about the colt, the Smith is the way to go

[wellcraft]

i think the majority of people that have had problems with the colt m4 22 rifles have had malfunctions because they didn't read the owners manual prior to firing the gun. there's a spring in the bolt that needs to be adjusted based on what type of ammo you are using. with that said i think the newer batch of SW MP 22's and the sig 522 are better choices over the colt. i have a colt but haven't gotten around to shooting it yet.

[chineseboxer]

I have the Smith....it's great!

[MCKNBRD]

The 'Colt' is a glorified airsoft gun, as stated above. Already having warranty issues with them, as Umarex is a bit overwhelmed and Colt is not standing by the product that bears their name.

The M&P is light years better, but, as mentioned above, its getting a reputation for puking extractors. If you pick one up, might as well have a spring, plunger, and extractor in your 'Oh, Shyt' kit. Keep the extractor clean and well lubed, as most of the ones I've seen come back are dry and dirty; extractors tend to walk on most autoloading .22LRs if they're dry. M&P advantages? Any AR trigger will drop in, and sights, lights, and any other tacticool stuff you can hang on your AR will hang on it.

Personally, I think a gussied-up 10/22 is the way to go, as they're proven, reliable, and have TONS of parts you can use on the one you build. I'm just partial, though.

Byrdman

[stooxie]

I had the Colt in my hands at a store and was totally prepared to buy it as I was looking for a 22LR AR platform.

I couldn't bring myself to do it. What really got me were the fake controls, i.e. mag release, it was so clearly a half hearted attempt. I really wanted to want to buy it (not a typo there) but it just didn't give me a good feeling.

I ended up with a Spike's Tactical upper. Perfect solution, I think. Proper AR lower with dedicated 22LR upper.

-Stooxie

[BulgarWheat]

Got the Smith and Wesson and am pretty pleased with it. Only a few things bug me about it,......unless you have a round chambered you can pull the magazine right out, and the magazines are not easy to find. I comes with two, but since when was two ever enough?