10/22 new vs old.

[edteach]

I bought a 10/22 back in 1995. It was blue and wood stock. Great gun but I have wanted a SS gun with composite stock so I would have less worry about rust. I sold my Ruger and and went to walmart to pick up a new SS all weather gun. I really don't see a problem but I did notice that the trigger guard barrel band was now composite. I really don't see a problem but what is the opinion out there on the new Rugers? Walmart was 234 which I thought was a good price.

 

[JumpmasterC]

The new composite material is actually a bit tougher!

 

[deserttrans]

They new ones work just as well.

 

[dsk]

Everybody has an opinion on the changes to the new Rugers. In my opinion the plastic barrel band and trigger housing is a plus, as they work just as well and there's no finish to scratch off. However I never had a problem with the old-style magazine release, so the extended one is something that to me only gets in the way. Of greater consequence however is the exterior finish. From around 2009 until just recently Ruger went with a horrible, cheap-looking "crinkle" finish on the receiver and left the barrel matte-finished, lathe marks and all. I'm also not too impressed with the fit of the wood stock to the metal these days either. Fortunately it sounds like you want the composite stock anyway, and the last few months' production appears to have gone back to the smoother finish on the barrel and receiver.

 

[woodpuppy]

I was awfully surprised to read about the plastic parts on the newer 10/22s. I guess I haven't paid them much attention since they stopped anodizing the receivers in favor of powder-coating. It took me a long time to accept plastic in a handgun, but I guess I'm sold on the idea as a tool. There sure it no soul in it though.

 

[BlkHawk73]

I don't mind either way. See and read a lot of folks whining and crying about the "plastic" parts. Wonder how many own a "plastic" pistol or an AR with any kind of "plastic" accessory? Just look at all the HK's Sigs, XD's and Glocks that break. :roll: I think most of the whining is because the people cannot accept any change. Something is different from how it had been for so long so it must be bad. :roll:.
I also believe that most, if not all, of the whiners don't have the business understanding/experience to see that things do change and at times allow production benefits.
Lastly people equate the term "plastic" with any synthetic material and group them all together. Not all such synthetic materials are the same. Some get it, others...:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

I had the standard carbine back in the eighties. Now have a two year old Deluxe Sporter. I don't see any difference in the function, not much in the looks. What's exposed of the trigger group has a little thicker contour.

Ruger has a video on their website showing how strong the polymer is, compared to the old aluminum. That satisfied me that it is likely an improvement, in the 10/22's case.

I will still never buy a plastic handgun, though, no way. That is only a positive when lighter weight is absolutely necessary and outweighs the negatives.

 

[Rumrunner]

I also have no problem with the synthetic trigger guards. I am satisfied that they are stronger, and as said the finish doesn't scratch off. I think one reason some people dont take to it is that they feel they are being cheated by paying the same price for "plastic" parts.

 

[dsk]

I really can't quite place where the hatred of plastic parts comes from. In guns that were always using plastic (like Glocks) it never bothered me. But on firearms that previously used steel or aluminum the substitution of plastic really irks me. I won't buy any new Beretta 92 with the plastic guide rod, trigger and safety lever for example. Some say the new parts work better, but for me the substitution of metal for plastic equals cost-cutting. Same with the plastic triggers and mainspring housings used on some of Colt's 1911s. Yet I also have a Remington Nylon 66 that is almost completely made of plastic (save for the barrel and a few small stamped metal parts), and it's one of my favorite rifles.

I guess while most of us will reluctantly admit that plastic parts are usually as good or better then the metal ones, the fact is plastic is a material we associate with the toys we had as kids or stuff we store food in, and to have it on a firearm that's supposed to evoke pride of ownership rubs against the grain.

 

[berettapistols]

I put an older all weather stock on my semi new 10/22RR & even though it's blued is what I wanted = Stealth..
My 10/22 was one of the last ones made with the aluminum trigger group & cost me $139.99 @ Bass Pro Shop..
Also note that it has factory William's Fire Sight fiber optic sights.

 

[Xsales]

The term "plastic" usually implies & people have the stigma of cheap oversees crap when in most firearms it is a high tech, extremely durable and virtually unbreakable "composites" material

Look at Fisher Price toys. Still going after 50 years and just don't break

There are some parts that should not be "plastic" but composite guards, frames ex... Glocks, Ruger 22/45s etc .... are 100% reliable and will be long after all of us are gone

Yes, there are always a few very rare examples of a bad composite parts but then there are steel/metal issues of rusting, pitting, finish wear, stress cracks.etc.....

 

[WAYNO]

I'm old school, so I prefer metal. I also understand I can't always have it my way, so I'm doing my best to get used to a broadened use of plastic/synthetic/polymer materials.

So, although I don't expect a problem with the plastic parts themselves, it is interesting to me that at roughly the same time that I bought my first 10/22's with the plastic trigger groups, is the same time that I found the triggers so horrible that I had to replace them.

Coincidence that I got a Monday trigger at the same time as my first plastic trigger groups? Or was it that same time that Ruger might have lowered their standards for their triggers. Or are the plastic trigger groups the culprits, themselves?

WAYNO.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

There are places for plastic (or "composite" or "polymer" or whatever PC term one wants to use. I use the word in a generic sense.)

Maybe guns are one place where it makes sense to all of us for certain applications. Like grips? In other words, non-critical apps?

When it comes to the likes of frames, trigger assy's, safeties and such--"critical" parts?--perhaps the plastics do work as well (arguably better in some cases) as the metal parts they replace. For a while?

I don't know of a plastic that doesn't start "degrading" the instant it comes out of the mold. Most metals, at least if properly cared for, are relatively inert in this degradation process.

The question is "How long will it take for this plastic part to dry out, become brittle, break, or otherwise fail?" For a Glock duty weapon w/ a projected 10-20 yr service life, it's probably a non-issue.

But if one wants to buy their 12 yr old son or daughter a gun that will still be "good as new" when they hand it down to their kids, and maybe another generation after that, will the plastic hold up as well as steel and other metals?

I don't know! But I do know steel will, as will most alloys used by gun mfrs. So I'm pretty much a traditionalist...

Rick C

 

[Anonymous]

But if one wants to buy their 12 yr old son or daughter a gun that will still be "good as new" when they hand it down to their kids, and maybe another generation after that, will the plastic hold up as well as steel and other metals?
Rick C

Great point. Maybe if it is left in a climate controlled safe, handled only with cotton gloves, and never exposed to sunlight.

All plastics degrade from UV and other things, even the acid in your perspiration. Our great grandkids will likely only see photos of today's plastic guns, or a few in museums, where the aging plastic will be too brittle for anyone to touch.

 

[dsk]

Maybe it's all an anti-gun conspiracy to force manufacturers to sell guns with a freshness date on them? :shock:

 

[Stoots]

I don't mind either way. See and read a lot of folks whining and crying about the "plastic" parts. Wonder how many own a "plastic" pistol or an AR with any kind of "plastic" accessory? Just look at all the HK's Sigs, XD's and Glocks that break. :roll: I think most of the whining is because the people cannot accept any change. Something is different from how it had been for so long so it must be bad. :roll:.
I also believe that most, if not all, of the whiners don't have the business understanding/experience to see that things do change and at times allow production benefits.
Lastly people equate the term "plastic" with any synthetic material and group them all together. Not all such synthetic materials are the same. Some get it, others...:roll:

Good post; I agree!

 

[CraigC]

I see the polymer housings as an upgrade. It's tougher, made more precisely and there is no finish to flake, peel or chip off. Over the long term, it will wear much better and there is little in this world uglier than an aluminum firearm part that has seen years of use and is now scuffed, chipped and scratched. It ain't like it was finely polished, blued steel. Anyone who has an issue with it will find no shortage of replacements, from bare housings like those $50 hard anodized units from TacInc. to full-on match units from KIDD.

 

[mpeltier]

I do not see them as an upgrade. It is a cost cutting measure by Ruger and nothing more. There was no problem with the original parts as designed that I have ever heard of. Asthetically I find the plasic parts less desirable and will be happy with my three older 10/22's for the remainder of my life. For new owners of them they will be more likely to be acceptible, but were I in the market for another, I would look for an older used one. There's a few out there.

 

[dsk]

Problem is finding an older one in mint condition. I've been looking, but everything I've seen looked like it'd been on quite a few hunting trips. If I had just one complaint about Ruger and the 10/22, it's that they have never offered a factory finish (aside from stainless) that was durable.

 

[jarubla]

I don't know of a plastic that doesn't start "degrading" the instant it comes out of the mold. Most metals, at least if properly cared for, are relatively inert in this degradation process.

The question is "How long will it take for this plastic part to dry out, become brittle, break, or otherwise fail?" For a Glock duty weapon w/ a projected 10-20 yr service life, it's probably a non-issue. Rick C

I have a glock made in 1996 (duty weapon too) and sent it in to be checked out. No issues, I exect it'll outlast me and I am 30-something.

-Jay

 

[Charon]

Is anyone able to show an example of a Nylon 66 on which the plastic stock has deteriorated while the steel parts (barrel and receiver cover) have not? Have there been any reports of an M16's plastic stock or fore-end deteriorating? As the M16 first hit the market during the Viet Nam era, now over forty years ago, there would seem to have been plenty of time for such to be reported.

As far as durability under harsh conditions, I note that steel rusts (even stainless, sometimes). Aluminum and its alloys corrode. Wood rots, swells when wet, cracks when dry, and in larger pieces such as full-length stocks warps with changes in weather. Wooden stocks on long guns have also been known to split under recoil. While it may be true that plastics have faults, tradional materials are not perfect.