Has anyone tried any of the graphite barrels (e.g., Butler Creek) on a Ruger 10/22?<br><br>I have the standard factory barrel on my Ruger Deluxe Sporter (vintage 1984). I typically get about 1 1/2" groups for 5 shots at 50 yards. I'd like to improve the accuracy without greatly increasing the weight. It is primarily a hunting gun.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>John

I haven't personally used one of the graphite barrels but i know a couple of poeple that have and they tell me that it really increases the accuracy. I'm really not fond of the short fat barrel look, so i installed a 22 inch midway (www.midwayusa.com) slim tapered stainless steel barrel on mine. At fifty yards it will shoot clover leaf groups with cheap walmart ammo. The barrel didn't alter the weight much but the fajen lamenated stock is quite a bit heavier that the factory stock. If you want to reduce the trigger pull on a 10-22 yourself, install a Volquartsen target hammer (www.volquartsen.com). It's normally a drop in installation and is around $35.00. The trigger pull on mine is a clean two pounds. The automatic bolt release and the extended magazine release are also nice additions. <br><br>And i think it was John in an earlier post who said it best. "we don't get new guns; we get new gun projects."

John,<br><br>Not a graphite, but I did put a heavy barrel on mine (same age as yours... no, a bit older) and then put it in a synthetic stock. Finished off with some gizzard parts (trigger stuff, modifed bolt catch, Volq. Ti extractor, buffer, and extended magazine release). Zowie! What a HUGE increase in accuracy! Frankly, I (and everyone else in the family) really prefer the "feel" of the HB 10-22 over the stock one. It's solid as a rock - everything just came together right on it. 5/8" 10 shot groups at 50 yards are the norm with Rem Std Vel ("Target"), Rem sub-sonic, & PMC Match (impractical field ammo - externally lubed with sticky wax). <br><br>The best HV stuff in mine is the new Win HP ("Xpert22 Hollow Point", bulk packed in 500 rd cartons grey and black in color) with sub 1" 10 shot groups at 50 yards. Didn't bother with any of the really spendy match ammo, but I checked out about everything else I could get my hands on. (Cheap ammo sucked, all the rest of the Winchester stuff sucked, and the inexpensive Federal Gold Medal Match was OK but Federal HV sucked. CCI was all over - some OK, some not - Stingers were lousy. Remington Vipers and YellowJackets were fair - occasional flyer would open the groups. Uhhh, there was more, but I'd have to go root up my notes... Have not have an opportunity to test Aguila ammo in any flavor yet.)<br><br>However... I have real concerns about that HB hanging off the aluminum receiver. IMHO, a graphite barrel would be wiser if cost is not an object. As it is, I followed the advice and bedded the barrel at near the end of the forearm - as a free-floating barrel fanatic for over 30 years, it hurt me to do that, but it works fine. There is an after market steel receiver available, but it uses conventional threaded barrel shanks - works out to a very spendy plinker.<br><br>The kicker, though, is that #2 son got a new 10-22 two years ago for his B-day - plain jane 10-22. It is close enough for practical purposes to be called as accurate as my modified one... no fooling. I put the same gizzards in it as mine, but all else is as-manufactured. I guess Ruger has improved things quite a bit since we got ours, eh? They make their own barrels now, so perhaps that accounts for some of it. There are some subtle ammo preference differences from mine, but the same types are tops in it. IIRC, it does sub 1" groups at 50 yards with all the stuff mine likes.<br><br>Pop cans are NOT safe at 100 yards! Neither are Necco wafers at 50 yards. Get a fat barrel - you'll like it. Or get a new 10-22 (The "T" is reputed to be very accurate)... <br><br>Oh - one last thought - the most important accuracy improvement I made - and it's not subjective - was to put adjustable objective 'scopes on them. Nothing fancy or expensive - I just used appropriate Simmons AO scopes. BIG improvement - forget using a "high power" scope - parallax is WRONG for .22rf ranges... only took me almost 20 years to figure that out :-( ...that cut groups almost in half at 50 yards. <br><br>To be honest, it didn't make as great a difference at 100 yards, but that's too far for a zero range on a field .22rf. I tripped into the truth of that by switching one of my air rifle scopes onto my .22 - not suitable for a field scope (target knobs), but it settled the arguement for me. We're zeroed for 75 yards and are trajectory-conscious from point-blank to 100 yards... AO set for 50 yards unless there is time to set more precisely.<br><br>Scouter Tom

Tom & Ray,<br><br>Wow! Thanks for the wealth of info.<br><br>That will take a while to digest and apply. But it looks promising. <br><br>Tom, your comment about AO hits hard. Naturally, I have a 4X high powered rifle scope mounted on it. I also have a Rem 541 which inherited a superseded older Leupold Vari X III 3 1/2 - 10X with AO (that's adjustable objective for Ade). I won't mention the vintage lest Cyberraven read it and feel too young to comment. I've always adjusted the AO according to the range. Not surprisingly, it always out-groups the 10/22, even with the magnification adjusted to 4X. I always assumed that it was just the gun that was intrinsically more accurate (I still suspect that it is a significant contributing factor). I never bothered to hold the AO constant. DUH! Guess what my next test will be. I've also got a spare target scope to try on the Ruger to see if the AO helps it.<br><br>I really like the idea of personally gunsmithing the innards myself largely with drop-in replacement parts. It's quick, personally satisfying, and cheap. A few years ago, I did a dozen or so recoil pad installations myself, and thereby justified to my wife the purchase of a lot of new tools. It's also hard to lose your own gun or do a 3-month late delivery of the work (when you would you would otherwise be without the gun to shoot).<br><br>I've also heard from other sources that the current Ruger barrels are a lot better. It's good to hear that validated. Thus it would be practical to just get another gun for the project. Wouldn't it be wild if the new gun didn't require and modifications. But I'm dreaming now.<br><br>By the way, our most accurate rifle is actually my wife's--a bargain Rem 788 in .243 Win that was a demo model I got for a pittance. <br><br>Thanks for the load of test data on ammo. I also tested a large variety of ammo several years ago. Some of my best results were with some older lots of Rem. & CCI SV. Some of my older PMC shot very well, but the newer lot did not. Surprisingly, the cheapo Wallyworld Rem LR HPs were not bad. I'll retest the W W ammo mentioned. <br><br>Thanks for all the loads of info.<br><br>John