As a practical matter, I don't recall using anything in a 22 long rifle persuasion that wasn't accurate enough at ranges appropriate for the task. IMHO, most folks get too focused on little groups on paper on a known-distance range with a 22 - more on that in a moment.
For the money, Marlin bolt actions are probably the most accurate - *for the money*. They are inexpensively made (poor triggers on most, but can be honed better) and can be a PITA to put a 'scope on because of the slot in the rear of the receiver. But they are for sure accurate - every single one I've ever fired, from my Dad's (late 1930s or early 1940s) to the cute little 15Y one of my sons owns. And the magazines (7 round detachable) for the old one are the same as the ones sold today, for what that's worth.
I bought a well used Ruger 10-22 many years ago - must be over 20 years ago. The only thing I did to it was saw off that silly crescent butt and replace it with a vented rubber recoil pad I had laying around - to lengthen the stock. It always shot quite well and wore a variety of 'scopes on it as well as going "naked" with the factory iron sights off and on over the years. A few years ago I "built" that 10-22 into a real tack driver. Heavy barrel, some internals, synthetic stock, so on. Decent scope with an AO. It saw some extensive use for close range varminting in South Dakota in its present trim (used to perform the same role many years ago in Wyoming). It is a deadly accurate little bugger and a real delight to shoot, especially with standard velocity ammunition (sub sonic). But... honestly, my M77MkII Target in .223 is more accurate (at least with my handloads - never fired any factory ammo thru it). Not by much - the 10-22 is a tackdriver and they are both one-raggedy-hole guns - but it's measurably not as accurate.
Funny thing - one of my boys has a late model plain vanilla 10-22 and all we did to it was drop a couple of internals in it. It is very nearly as accurate as my slick little black gun. Enough so as to make no difference in the field. And it's certainly better for lugging around all day.
I do not feel comfortable with the barrel-action hook-up on these - don't care if they are factory or converted to threaded. That action is the weak link in my book. I think a bad fall resulting in an upward blow to the end of the barrel would do BAD things at the action-barrel interface. (Yes, I have taken a couple of nasty falls in the real outdoors world while lugging a sporting rifle around.) IIRC, Clarke makes a replacement steel action (spendy) and if I was custom building a 10-22 clone, I'd go that route.
There is a strong arguement often made for a survival 22 to use a tubular magazine instead of a detachable magazine ("clip"). Nonsense; I've used both and I can offer first-hand experiences in the wild of why neither is perfect. You want perfect, go with a fixed box magazine like a grown-up bolt action. (A miniature Lee-Enfield fixed-but-still-detachable 10 round box magazine might be the cat's PJs if there are any designers lurking out here... but I'll pass on the L-E action)
So - if we look beyond a detachable magazine, why not look very seriously at a Marlin M39 varient? The carbine take-down models in particular. Every one of these that I have ever fired has been more than accurate enough for 22-suitable tasks - actually, very accurate. They readily take a 'scope and better iron sights can easily be retro-fitted. They easily handle every type of 22 ammo - shorts to long rifles. Very reliable and very fast follow-up compared to a bolt action. For the life of me, I can't offer a reason for why I don't own one or more of these - I genuinely like them and they shoot great.
[on soapbox]
This is not aimed at you - just a point I'd like to make:
Back on the accuracy thing for a moment: Little tiny targets like head-shooting tree rats or even tinier, ptarmigan heads? Hmmm. Using a 'scope? Hmmmm. Line of sight is approx 1.5 inches above the bore centerline. 22 rimfire has a rainbow trajectory between 0 and 100 yards if we're talking tiny targets. Complex memory/computational tasks in the organic ballistic computer ensue, because real live tree rats do not present themselves at consistent ranges. Best bet is good iron sights (closer to bore centerline) and stick to shots that are within a narrowly pre-determined range. That's part of the real world not found on paper at a K-D range. And guess what? those real-world constraints are such that just about any off-the-shelf 22 rifle will easily pass muster.
Maybe the targets are not so tiny - like bunnies? Then know thy rifle/ammo combo. As a practical matter for prairie-dog sized targets, I find a 75 yard zero with my little tackdriver makes anyone deadly from zero to 100 yards UNLESS they are trying a headshot at some of the icky in-between ranges (see ballistics tables). Personally, I can take 'dogs farther away with that rifle/ammo combo, but I've spent untold hours and bricks of ammo shooting in those conditions with it. Would I hunt squirrels with it? Not sighted in at that range and maybe not with the 'scope on it. Bunnies? Sure. And I don't need that level of accuracy for anything other than varminting at ranges over 50 yards. Super accurate 22 hunting rifles are <yawn> so what? The world is not a target range.
[off soapbox]
Everyone makes 22 rifles and there are lots of great ones out there. If cost is critical, get a Marlin bolt action and improve it with some careful TLC - fuss with the scope mounting and try to get it to suit you. If it's not so critical, get a stock 10-22 and put an inexpensive AO 'scope on it. Money no object? Plenty of bolt actions to choose from. But I think a Marlin M39 with a 'scope and aftermarket iron sights would be a better overall rifle/carbine for "survival" than all the above.
Guns are worse than knives for arguements, so anyone that wants to disagree, jump in - no foul.
Tom
Previous Topic
Index
