Local store has the Ruger 10/22 on sale, $239 for blue version, $269 for stainless.

Which one should I buy and why?

Keeping in mind also that the blue version has an actual wood stock vs a pretty cheap looking synthetic on the stainless version. Another note, I live in SoCal, very dry climate and the rifle will most likely not be carried in very wet or rainy weather.

JohnE

Given your climate, it sounds like it is purely down to aesthetics.

I have access to a 10/22 in blue that is from the original run of the rifles and it is still going strong all these years later.

I'm a big fan of wood stocks on rifles, but on the 10/22, I'd go with the stainless. The reason they (almost) always pair a synthetic stock with a stainless rifle is for moisture and elements. The entire rifle is covered that way.

In my humble opinion and experience, Ruger is an Outstanding company. You're good to go either way. Me? On the .22 LR rifle that's going to see alot of "banging" around? Light enough to lug around, rain or shine? Stainless / synthetic. Save the blued/walnut for your first Ruger #1....

John, you might try WalMart too (maybe that's your "local store"...I don;t know). They generally have the best prices and will order the rifle for you if they don;t have the one you want in-stock (10 days).

I have an old Marlin Glenfield Model 75 autoloading .22LR. It's a nice little rifle, but nowhere near the quality of the Ruger. It has a wood stock that I've refinished once and it still gets banged around quite a bit. It's more accurate than a wrist-rocket, but not much more. The Ruger will do better in that department.

I'd go with the Stainless version. Later on, you can always change the stock to a nicer looking laminate/composite version that is more to your liking.

Hey John,

I cannot speak to the SoCal climate because I have never been there, but in my cold/wet forested area the Stainless/Synthetic would be the way to go. I had to choose between the 10/22 Ruger and the Papoose Marlin a couple of years ago. I picked the Papoose because of the "takedown" feature and have been happy with it, but still may also get the 10/22 just because I like the rifle. It is very rare to hear anything negative about the 10/22 Ruger.

Mike

If this is going to be your only rifle, I'd buy the synthetic/stainless, even though I would really prefer a stainless/wood combo. Because the 10/22 is so upgradable, you will always find people selling their blued barrel and wood stock when they upgrade, but rarely will someone buy a stainess/synthetic version to upgrade, so those are much harder to find secondhand. It's worth the extra $30, and if you decide you want to switch, you can always find someone willing to switch a wood for synthetic or stainless for blued, but not the otherway around. Really it just comes down to preference. But if you're like me, eventually you're going to buy both.

Anytime you can upgrade a firearm like this to stainless for such little extra go for it. I have yet to own a blued firearm that I had to let stand for a day or more after being handled/fired/exposed to the elements that the finish didn't blemish somehow. I don't like blued firearms nearly as much as stainless or coated ones; I am more of a utilitarian in that respect, and less on aesthetics.

Yeah, you won't get much rain, but don't forget about June gloom if you're out with the gun. Any camping that time may expose the gun to moisture.

Also, during the Santa Ana's if you're out towards the deserts, you might lose some blueing from the swirling sands.

If you're just planning on staying in town and plinking at the local range, it's totally about asthetics.

stainless. +1