View Single Post
Old January 3, 2013, 10:17 AM   #11
anothernewb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: West Central MN
Posts: 114
I had the 10/22 carbine (base model) a mossberg and a rem 597 side by side at one time

I will say that the mossberg was more accurate out of the box. sub inch groups when I found the ammo it liked best.

the composite stocked 597 was also a very nice gun, but felt "cheaper" compared to the other 2, having about the same accuracy as the 10/22 out of the box.

service wise - the 10/22 was the clear winner hands down. it feeds more brands of ammo, more reliably, with a more consistent level of accuracy than any other 22 I own besides my buckmark pistol (which is on even par)

If use and preference can be an indication of which is the best one, the 10/22 was the hands down winner (for me) there as well. I found I always grabbed it first.

Are the other 22 autoloaders available bad guns? certainly not, not by any means. But after thousands of rounds the 10/22 (for me) emerged as the most consistent and trouble free of the bunch. My friend now has the 597 (which he loves completely - to the point of constantly ragging me about my ruger) and my sister has the mossberg (which still excels at taking out gophers - and is entirely jam proof - as long as you feed it winchester super x hollow points)

Now - I did modify my 10/22 with a replacement (factory style taper, not a bull) barrel and a trigger job. and the walnut sporter stock (I'm a sucker for blued steel and wood - what can I say) After those modifications - it's a ragged hole 50 yard shooter and a sub inch grouper at 75 yds off a rest using several brands of commonly available bulk pack ammo.

Bottom line - Is it worth the premium over the other brands? IMO Every penny.

I think it's the most commonly sold 22 out there IIRC, but then again - it also has a fantastic marketing campaign too, and there's seemingly one in every gun store you walk into, so it's availability may have something to do with that.
anothernewb is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04098 seconds with 7 queries