10/22 trigger group poly versus old style aluminum?

[Tallbald]

I see a goodly number of folks on other forums eager to swap out their polymer 10/22 trigger groups for the old style aluminum trigger groups. Is there some issue with the newer polymer trigger groups I don't know about? I would have thought with the proliferation of polymer frames in handguns, etc etc, there would be acceptance of a polymer trigger group housing too. Is the same material used in the 10/22 trigger group housing that Ruger uses in the frames of their polymer handguns? Thanks. Don

 

[GasGuzzler]

There is nothing wrong with it other than tradition. Ruger made them metal from the beginning until 2007. I swapped mine because I went polished, hard to do with plastic. The only other real difference is the hammer that has bushings made on (metal guard has separate bushings) and the "better" mag release (that can be fixed on a metal housing 7687686 different ways). Most people just don't want plastic on a Ruger.

 

[blume357]

I have two 10/22 poly trigger groups.... the first one was actually on a Charger... and when I put a Volsquarsen hammer, spring and sear on it.... bad things happened.... if you tried to pull the trigger with the safety on...nothing happened but the second you flipped the safety off the hammer fell and the gun fired.....not good... this was just on that one... I have not tried it on the second one...

 

[BlkHawk73]

Just a matter of ppl not being able to accept change and partially because they see any change as a bad, horrible thing even if they know nothing of the details of why the change occurred. They'll certainly have opinions, and "facts" based on no actual experience or knowledge, just "facts" based on what they think based on nothing but there being a change in materials.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Just a matter of ppl not being able to accept change and partially because they see any change as a bad, horrible thing even if they know nothing of the details of why the change occurred.

Hi,

We all know why this change occurred: cost.

Ruger's in the business of making money first, guns second. Cutting a production cost w/o cutting the subsequent selling price makes 'em more money. Sometimes. Other times it backfires when the market doesn't cooperate. Look what happened to Winchester after 1964! They've spent almost a half century trying to get their market back, and it's still looking like a marginal slot is the best they've got...

The firearms market is VERY traditional and conservative at its base, and as long as we've got folks around buying guns who realize they should be made of wood and steel, there will be controversy over whether light alloys, plastics and other "non-traditional" materials are good or bad. Some here will remember when Ruger started using CAST steel where others used forged steel and the controversy that caused. Sixty years later it's still not completely put to rest... in fact, the embers have been fanned w/ the advent of MIM parts. What's old is new again?

Personally, if a manufacturer's proposal to save a few pennies in production costs results in a significant "change" in the product, whether real or perceived, I'd like 'em to ask me (the market) FIRST if I'd be willing to spend an extra quarter or two at retail to keep the "old" product. It's quite possible the MBA whiz kids would be surprised at the answer (for example, how's VQ doing w/ their metal 10/22 replacement trigger housings?) Though I've got a couple of guns w/ plastic trigger guards and one w/ a plastic fire control group (non-Rugers), I prefer my old 10/22 w/ the metal FCG (even though it's a light alloy instead of steel), and am not sure I'd buy one w/ the new plastic parts. I might not buy another NEW 870 from Remington, either, as it appears they, too, have fallen in love w/ plastic. So did their "cost savings" also "cost" them a sale or two? Maybe... maybe not: for each person like myself fading from the scene, there's a new one who "doesn't know any better" and will buy whatever's placed on the counter in from of him. Zero sum game? I dunno...

There you go, straight from the dinosaur's mouth!

Rick C

 

[WAYNO]

Well, my displeasure with the plastic trigger groups has little to do with the fact they're plastic.

My displeasure is due to the horrible triggers my plastic trigger groups have. Maybe it's coincidence, and the only horrible triggers that Ruger ever made happened to all come my direction, but my little brain suspects a common denominator.

If they were still using aluminum, and newer ones had such awful triggers, I would not like them either.

WAYNO.

 

[GasGuzzler]

The metal ones are generally poor too. As bad? That's tough to judge.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Polymer or alloy, neither were great as shipped. On a $200 mass produced, assembly line plinker, I wouldn't expect much. While not my favorite method, a very simple $24 hammer change makes it much better.
Triggers on the $500 single actions aren't any better and ppl don't complain about them nearly as much as they do with the 10/22.
Maybe it's just me, but if one really needs the fine things when they first buy the gun, there's those that come like that. They're made by Kidd and Volquartsen. Feel free to spend the $$$$.

 

[GasGuzzler]

Agreed. I wasn't complaining, just telling the truth. I whined a little more about the 22/45 trigger because it cost a lot more to make it right.

Point is both are kinda cheap stock so spend some time, or money, or both and make it like you wanna....still come out ahead money wise. If one gets an older single action that has been worked over and used as intended at a cheap price while still in good shape, one might like single action triggers more.

 

[Quattroclick]

The plastic trigger on my 2011 10/22 was light years better than the original metal trigger group on my 1975 vintage 10/22, which broke grittily at about 9-10 pounds. No more. After an evening of stoning and polishing and a $2 investment in dremel supplies, the trigger breaks at a reasonably crisp 3 pounds. That alone did wonders for the groups.

 

[DDubya]

The plastic trigger on my 2011 10/22 was light years better than the original metal trigger group on my 1975 vintage 10/22, which broke grittily at about 9-10 pounds. No more. After an evening of stoning and polishing and a $2 investment in dremel supplies, the trigger breaks at a reasonably crisp 3 pounds. That alone did wonders for the groups.

I agree. The 10/22 that I bought in the early 70s had a horrible trigger. I worked in a gun shop at the time and worked the trigger and sear until it gave me a good let off. Sold that gun ages ago. I've since bought 3 10/22s and they all had fairly good triggers out of the box, but I worked them up too.

 

[ttshooter]

I have been doing trigger jobs on them for years without problems.
I do like them better with a metal trigger...
ttshooter.com

 

[BlkHawk73]

I have been doing trigger jobs on them for years without problems.
I do like them better with a metal trigger...
ttshooter.com

And doing a fantastic job on them as well.

A multi-time satisfied customer.

 

[CraigC]

Just a matter of ppl not being able to accept change and partially because they see any change as a bad, horrible thing even if they know nothing of the details of why the change occurred. They'll certainly have opinions, and "facts" based on no actual experience or knowledge, just "facts" based on what they think based on nothing but there being a change in materials.

Yep!

IMHO, the polymer was an improvement. I'm a diehard traditionalist but for me, there's blued steel and everything else. So anodized or spray painted aluminum is not better than polymer to me. At least not in this case. Polymer with molded-in color that won't scratch and ding and look like crap in a few years is better than aluminum that does. If they had changed from blued steel to plastic I still wouldn't be squalling, I'd just buy older guns. Besides, if you want better, aftermarket receivers and trigger housings with a real anodized hardcoat are better than anything Ruger has ever produced.

 

[Precision32]

I have two 10/22 poly trigger groups.... the first one was actually on a Charger... and when I put a Volsquarsen hammer, spring and sear on it.... bad things happened.... if you tried to pull the trigger with the safety on...nothing happened but the second you flipped the safety off the hammer fell and the gun fired.....not good... this was just on that one... I have not tried it on the second one...

This has nothing to do with the material of the trigger housing. It has everything to do with sear engagement.

When you do a trigger job that reduces the sear engagement, you need to make sure that the safety still holds, and your's did not. This is corrected by peening the left side of the safety leg of the sear to increase it's length. This is a simple fix that I do all the time.

 

[SteelShooter]

Kidd says the polymer housing is better...

Cool Guy Guns, who makes the Kidd 10/22 trigger that you can set to 2 ozs. repeatably is now selling a Ruger Trigger "kit" for the facotry housing. They indicate the plastic housing is held to tighter tollerances, thier trigger kit for the Ruger housing gets you down to a 1-3/4# pull.

"We have found that our KIDD "trigger job" kit made to drop into a Ruger 10/22 guard works better in an OEM Ruger Polymer unit than an older metal unit due to the hole placement consistency in the polymer units. So we offer this black Ruger polymer guard with nothing but the Ruger safety installed in case a customer has a metal unit that isn't working properly with their KIDD "trigger job" kit. After purchasing this guard you can remove the internals from your metal trigger guard and install them in your polymer guard in order to make your KIDD "trigger job" kit work properly."

 

[Merovingian]

Personally. I hate plastic on my guns. I don't even like poly stocks. Having a stainless barrel and Receiver with a black plastic trigger assembly looks silly as hell.

 

[mohavesam]

Technology advances for the rational. Nostalgia loses every time via emotion.

The ploy parts DO take Krylon much better...