Almost bought a 10/22 today, but was put off by the plastic trigger/housing.

My brother picked up one of the new ones with the plastic trigger housing. Other then the normal crappy trigger pull (that was fixed with some added Power Custom parts) it is a decent rifle.
 
I was put off by the new plastic trigger guard/housing on the new 10/22 until I finally bought one.

Now I can say for a fact that it's a non-issue. It doesn't make a lick of difference and I don't notice it at all.

It's funny that when folks are looking for opinions in a bolt gun or semi-auto pistol, the first suggestions that invariably come up are the Tikka T3 and Glock, and both of those firearms have a LOT more plastic in their construction than a 10/22 in lowly .22LR.

As an interesting side-note, the plastic parts on my 10/22 seem MUCH more nicely finished (i.e., no mold flashing and no color variations) than those on just about every Glock I've ever handled.
 
I probably would not have bought a 10/22, except that I stumbled into a deal on a NIB 1968 model with all metal parts and a walnut stock.
All things being equal, which would you rather have?
 
I got a 10/22 that is a nail driver trigger is rough and plastic but it works well, no problems with it. I really would not consider it a issue IMO.
 
It is a total non-issue to me - I bought the cheapest 10/22 I could find. I am not very kind to my rifles and handguns aside from keeping them clean.

I haven't broken the 10/22 and doubt I will.
 
As stated on the other page, the newer 10/22's do have some differences. I have both a 1996 & 2011 model 10/22 in standard configuration.

Hammer & bolt are not machined like the older models. The receiver does have some rough paint on the inside...I'm hoping that will wear in or off and be a little smoother.

The trigger guard is plastic which honestly it don't mind. On the trigger & guard there's no black paint to rub off on the corners like my older model did. the trigger has groves and seems wider, which to me feels better. If you hunt cold weather the plastic trigger guard will soon be an advantage when your trigger finger skin touches it-aluminum is very cold. Ruger's website shows the drop advantage to plastic it returns to form where aluminum bends.....honestly a non issue for me I have never dropped one that hard.

I noticed even the magazine lips are not machined anymore like the older models were.

Accuracy is the same I honestly cannot tell a difference. Both are reliable and problem free. The new model is a little rougher operating the bolt it's not as smooth as the older one, but I also don't have thousands of rounds through the new one yet either. I like the trigger better on the new model personally.

My opinion to sum it up= same reliable rifle that is accurate and works just manufactured a little different.
 
TX Hunter said:
I wonder if the Plastic parts will still be good when the gun is 20 or 30 years old ? I just dont like plastic on guns.
Click to expand...

If it's not exposed to direct sunlight 24/7/365 it well be fine. UV radiation is hard on plastics. The polymer bottom feeders have been in uses for many years now and they are holding up. They take much more stress than a trigger guard does.

I'm not a plastic gun fan by any means but it doesn't bother me on something like the 10/22 trigger guard. If anything the polymer guard is probably stronger and more wear resistant at the trigger pin holes.

I've seen several aluminum trigger guard units that I had to make oversize hammer pins made because of wear issues.
 
I wonder if the Plastic parts will still be good when the gun is 20 or 30 years old ? I just dont like plastic on guns.
Click to expand...

Plenty of 40-year-old Nylon 66s are out there running fine. Same with 20+ year-old Glocks. And these use plastic parts that are much more critical than the trigger guards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top