On 6/16/16 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:00:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, that's not a stock 10/22. Shooter changed the stock, the barrel, and
probably the receiver.

The receiver is the part with the serial number on it. Duh

I am also not sure much but the stock was changed and that is common
with 10/22s. They are sort of like ARs. You buy the part with the
serial number and make whatever kind of gun you want.
The 10/22 may be the best selling .22 out there over the 50 years it
has been around.


There are several suppliers of "third party receivers" for the 10/22.
They get shipped to an FFL. Here's one:

http://tinyurl.com/z3ymk7s

I'm not disputing the success of the 10/22, but to make it as accurate
as a CZ 455 or 452, you have to spend several times the original cost of
the rifle.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ex8dSp_DJQA

Ok. Box stock 10/22 with a 3x Bushnel


Hits at 500 yd.

On 6/16/16 7:39 PM, Tim wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ex8dSp_DJQA

Ok. Box stock 10/22 with a 3x Bushnel


Hits at 500 yd.



Show me the vid of the stock 10/22 shooting a 1/2" group at 100 yards,
something the CZ's can do.

Tim wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ex8dSp_DJQA

Ok. Box stock 10/22 with a 3x Bushnel


Hits at 500 yd.

That's impressive from any .22LR!

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:06:35 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/16/16 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:00:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, that's not a stock 10/22. Shooter changed the stock, the barrel, and
probably the receiver.

The receiver is the part with the serial number on it. Duh

I am also not sure much but the stock was changed and that is common
with 10/22s. They are sort of like ARs. You buy the part with the
serial number and make whatever kind of gun you want.
The 10/22 may be the best selling .22 out there over the 50 years it
has been around.


There are several suppliers of "third party receivers" for the 10/22.
They get shipped to an FFL. Here's one:

http://tinyurl.com/z3ymk7s

That is a new gun. Why bother to even start with a 10/22 if you are
just going to throw away the serialized part?


I'm not disputing the success of the 10/22, but to make it as accurate
as a CZ 455 or 452, you have to spend several times the original cost of
the rifle.

Most people would rather have a magazine fed semi auto if they are not
shooting some kind of competition or fantasizing about it..

On 6/16/16 7:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:06:35 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/16/16 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:00:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, that's not a stock 10/22. Shooter changed the stock, the barrel, and
probably the receiver.

The receiver is the part with the serial number on it. Duh

I am also not sure much but the stock was changed and that is common
with 10/22s. They are sort of like ARs. You buy the part with the
serial number and make whatever kind of gun you want.
The 10/22 may be the best selling .22 out there over the 50 years it
has been around.


There are several suppliers of "third party receivers" for the 10/22.
They get shipped to an FFL. Here's one:

http://tinyurl.com/z3ymk7s

That is a new gun. Why bother to even start with a 10/22 if you are
just going to throw away the serialized part?


I'm not disputing the success of the 10/22, but to make it as accurate
as a CZ 455 or 452, you have to spend several times the original cost of
the rifle.

Most people would rather have a magazine fed semi auto if they are not
shooting some kind of competition or fantasizing about it..



It's a hobby. I had a nice mag-fed semi-auto 22LR rifle a few years ago.
I sold it. It, too, was more accurate out of the box than any of the
10/22's. My CZ .22 is bolt action, with magazines. I like cycling the bolt.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:05:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I like cycling the bolt.

You do seem to have a fascination with 19th century technology lately.
I suppose next year it will be flintlocks. At least you will be able
to say it was the gun the framers had in mind. ;-)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:38:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:05:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I like cycling the bolt.

You do seem to have a fascination with 19th century technology lately.
I suppose next year it will be flintlocks. At least you will be able
to say it was the gun the framers had in mind. ;-)

===

Let's not forget cap and ball. It was an important step forward.

On 6/16/16 10:38 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:05:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I like cycling the bolt.

You do seem to have a fascination with 19th century technology lately.
I suppose next year it will be flintlocks. At least you will be able
to say it was the gun the framers had in mind. ;-)


I do like mechanical processes that involve the operators. That's
probably why I like lever and bolt action rifles and revolvers and on
cars and trucks, standard transmissions.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/16/16 10:38 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:05:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I like cycling the bolt.

You do seem to have a fascination with 19th century technology lately.
I suppose next year it will be flintlocks. At least you will be able
to say it was the gun the framers had in mind. ;-)


I do like mechanical processes that involve the operators. That's
probably why I like lever and bolt action rifles and revolvers and on
cars and trucks, standard transmissions.


There's nothing wrong with that. I'm impressed with the craftsmanship
of older lever action rifles. They aren't any easy gun to make without
CNC machines and investment casting.