Posts
In an earlier post I joked about Kijiro Nambu copying Bill Ruger rather than the other way around.
Ruger certainly got more mileage from his version.
I'm quite fond of my 1957 made Standard.
It pairs well with Bill's other .22, perhaps the most successful design ever made.
Though the older (and for me cheaper) Challenger shoots better.
I've never had much use for .22LR.
It's just not something that grabbed me like it seemed to grab others.
It might have something to do with my getting into guns just as NATO was completing their transition to 5.56 and the end of The Cold War.
Surplus ammo seemed almost as cheap as .22 then.
A beautiful Ruger Standard! I have a MKII, but I'm in line to inherit a Standard. I stick to high velocity and have no issues with reliability. It seems other gun companies have trouble recreating that magic formula for reliability of the Ruger Standard/MK series (I'm looking at you, Sig Mosquito). 22s are fun/easy to shoot, but dirty. Pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteA possible con to 22s is the lack of recoil/noise (seriously!). It sometimes screws up my shooting mojo when I switch from a 22 back to service calibers; I find myself anticipating recoil. _Jking
The Ruger Mark series are fine guns. I had two (now one), both Mark IIs. I had to sell the Standard 4 3/4" because apparently, I run battery acid in my veins. It rusted very quickly and I had to clean it within hours or receive rust as a result of waiting too long to clean. Otherwise, a fine gun. The other I still own, a scoped 5 1/2" bull barrel target mode in stainless steel. A lot of goodness there, but heavy. I carry in hand when hunting small game.
ReplyDelete10/22s are great guns too. 10 round rotary magazines work very well. I wish I would have bought a .22 magnum version when they were available but maybe just as well. I've read they had some issues.
jrg