Thoughts on the RUGER PRECISION RIMFIRE RIFLE?

[bladeracer]

No that's the marketing team and bean counters at work mate. They know they have a big market that like their RPR series centrefire rifles and wanted a cheap rifle equivalent. Not that by the time the rprr reaches Australia it's cheap.

Well that's my take on it, esp reading the American Facebook pages

I consider any .22LR that can consistently hold 1MOA to 100m to be very good, and all three of my Rugers do so, is that somehow not good enough these days for an off the shelf $800 rifle?

[Sergeant Hartman]

BR no that's pretty good, But what i mean is with rprr there is a big proportion of rifles that can't do that... resulting in many having to spend 400usd on a new barrel. Sure there are also many who do it before firing a single round.

[bladeracer]

BR no that's pretty good, But what i mean is with rprr there is a big proportion of rifles that can't do that... resulting in many having to spend 40usd on a new barrel. Sure there are also many who do it before firing a single round.

I would suggest they need to test a lot more ammo types to find out what the rifle prefers before changing the barrel, unless the ability to put an aftermarket barrel on was why they bought it in the first place. I've seen comments complaining about the Ruger American Rimfires not being able to use aftermarket barrels, and some people want to put an aftermarket barrel on everything regardless of how the OEM barrel shoots.

I would also suggest getting at least 1000rds down the tube before deciding it won't shoot.

I have tested about a dozen types that won't group (in my Rugers) ten rounds better than about 65mm at 50m (about 4.5MoA), if those happened to be the only ammo I'd tried I would've been horrendously disappointed in the rifle - despite "trying more than a dozen different types!". I've found three so far that hold 1MoA out to 100m though, and six that hold 1.5MoA or better, and another dozen that hold 2MoA at 100m.

I've been collecting and have about twenty more types to test, a few more will give me a hundred different types so far tested.
On that, does anybody know of anywhere that has the Hornady subsonic .22LR ammo yet?

[mikejay]

I would suggest they need to test a lot more ammo types...........

We put about 1000 rounds through my bro's RPRimfire, from CCI SV, all through the Eley range from Club to Tennex, Most of the SK range, a few Fiocchi types, some RWS types, average was 3 - 4 MOA (1.5 to 2 inches) at 50 meters and that barely changed no matter what ammo you used. As a definitive test we took it to SISC's ballistics test range, where they clamp it in a vice and put a whole lot of different round through it at 50 m..... it didn't do so well. So yeah, changing out the barrel was pretty justified.

[mikejay]

I consider any .22LR that can consistently hold 1MOA to 100m to be very good, and all three of my Rugers do so, is that somehow not good enough these days for an off the shelf $800 rifle?

That's good shooting, imaging how much better you could do with a match chamber and barrel made using better processes than Ruger use for their 22's

[bladeracer]

[quote="bladeracer"
I consider any .22LR that can consistently hold 1MOA to 100m to be very good, and all three of my Rugers do so, is that somehow not good enough these days for an off the shelf $800 rifle?[/quote

That's good shooting, imaging how much better you could do with a match chamber and barrel made using better processes than Ruger use for their 22's

I'm not sure it's possible to do much better with a .22LR rifle for under $1000 though, or much of a need for better than that.
I'm no kind of target shooter so I'm certain some members here could shoot much better than me with my own rifles.

What .22LR rifles are you getting significantly-sub-MoA out of at 100m?

I just did a quick search for long-range precision .22 rifles and found this.
https://www.precision22lr.com/post/most-accurate-22-rifle-out-of-the-box
https://www.precision22lr.com/22lr-bolt-action-rifle-spec-compari

[mikejay]

What .22LR rifles are you getting significantly-sub-MoA out of at 100m?

I just did a quick search for long-range precision .22 rifles and found this.
https://www.precision22lr.com/post/most-accurate-22-rifle-out-of-the-box
https://www.precision22lr.com/22lr-bolt-action-rifle-spec-compari

I've never shot out to 100m yet, just got my license in October last year, best I'm doing at the moment is 1/4 to 1/2 MOA at 50m, I'm still figuring out posture and breathing and the like. I'm running a Savage MKII BTVLSS, best ammo it like so far are SK Rifle Match and Eley Match, does ok with CCI SV but has too many flyers for my liking.

My brother's RPRimfire now with the IBI barrel, after 2 sessions is getting some consistency, still playing with different ammo, at about the same 1/4 to 1/2 MOA at 50m using Centre-X. He's also a new shooter, going through the motions of figuring out all the fun stuff like posture and breathing, trigger control etc etc.

What do either of us want? consistent 1/4 MOA groups at 50m, either of our rifles can do it, we can't ... yet.

I've done a bit of work to my rifle on my own like pillars, bedding, widened barrel channel, lightened trigger (1.1 pounds now), re profiled firing pin, fixed Savage's 22LR magazine feed issues.

[Stix]

So mikejay...
Are you actually shooting what you say...?

If you're shooting .125"-.25" (which is 1/4-1/2 moa @ 50m) thats fantastic...!!

Maybe ill get you to pimp up my 22's...! !

[bladeracer]

I've never shot out to 100m yet, just got my license in October last year, best I'm doing at the moment is 1/4 to 1/2 MOA at 50m, I'm still figuring out posture and breathing and the like. I'm running a Savage MKII BTVLSS, best ammo it like so far are SK Rifle Match and Eley Match, does ok with CCI SV but has too many flyers for my liking.

My brother's RPRimfire now with the IBI barrel, after 2 sessions is getting some consistency, still playing with different ammo, at about the same 1/4 to 1/2 MOA at 50m using Centre-X. He's also a new shooter, going through the motions of figuring out all the fun stuff like posture and breathing, trigger control etc etc.

What do either of us want? consistent 1/4 MOA groups at 50m, either of our rifles can do it, we can't ... yet.

I've done a bit of work to my rifle on my own like pillars, bedding, widened barrel channel, lightened trigger (1.1 pounds now), re profiled firing pin, fixed Savage's 22LR magazine feed issues.

At 50m, one-quarter minute is a 3.6mm group! Even half-MoA is still a 7.5mm group. I have shot a 6.5mm group at 50m but it was an anomaly, far from the norm.
If you can shoot .22LR quarter-minute groups you need to get into national Benchrest competition.
Centre-X doesn't shoot very well in my rifles, around 1.5MoA at 100m for ten rounds.

I've done nothing at all to my rifles, I've never even adjusted the triggers, I just shoot them in the paddocks, but I do shoot them a lot.

[mikejay]

At 50m, one-quarter minute is a 3.6mm group! Even half-MoA is still a 7.5mm group. I have shot a 6.5mm group at 50m but it was an anomaly, far from the norm.
If you can shoot .22LR quarter-minute groups you need to get into national Benchrest competition.
Centre-X doesn't shoot very well in my rifles, around 1.5MoA at 100m for ten rounds.

I can do 1/4 MOA @ 50m but not with any great consistency yet. 1/2 MOA @ 50m I can do more often. My self printed bulls are 5mm OD centres with a 9.5mm OD ring.
I get some groups inside the ring, I get a few groups inside the bull, I'm starting to do that for a few bulls in a row, I'll get better aka more consistent over time, I'm still a newbie.

Mine doesn't like Centre-X either, my bro's does.

[mikejay]

So mikejay...
Are you actually shooting what you say...?

If you're shooting .125"-.25" (which is 1/4-1/2 moa @ 50m) thats fantastic...!!

Maybe ill get you to pimp up my 22's...! !

Thanks man!

I don't know what I'm doing re. tuning rifles in general, I just watch a lot of YouTube vids and read a lot of forum posts that apply to my Savage. Oh. and having a bit of guts to try things on my rifle that could go completely the wrong way, looking at my firing pin here.

I was going to say biggest improvement for me was getting a better rear bag and front rest, but that's not true, they just helped me eliminate things I was doing badly or inconsistently. Everything is important and fixing things and or doing things better all add up. I know, I know, preaching to the choir.

[SCJ429]

Last year at the Canberra Rimfire Fly the best group was 0.93 I think, at 200 metres using an Anschutz 54 action and Eley Tenex.

[bladeracer]

Last year at the Canberra Rimfire Fly the best group was 0.93 I think, at 200 metres using an Anschutz 54 action and Eley Tenex.

Outstanding shooting!
Was that way ahead or were others shooting similarly?

[sungazer]

I'm not sure it's possible to do much better with a .22LR rifle for under $1000 though, or much of a need for better than that.
I'm no kind of target shooter so I'm certain some members here could shoot much better than me with my own rifles.

What .22LR rifles are you getting significantly-sub-MoA out of at 100m?

I just did a quick search for long-range precision .22 rifles and found this.
https://www.precision22lr.com/post/most-accurate-22-rifle-out-of-the-box
https://www.precision22lr.com/22lr-bolt-action-rifle-spec-compari

That first comparison is a bit, No is very bulls**t. He states the way he made the chart and the decision was from reports that he got off forums not his actual testing. Thats just silly.

An Anschutz 1710 need to be in any comparison of accuracy out of the box tests. The Anschutz range just put most other rifles to shame. It is a brand name that can be trusted. I bought a Sako on brand name and was a little disappointed with the fit finish and quality of wood (not 22LR). I haven't seen a bad Annie as yet. I am tempted to buy one off Used Guns some come up very cheap. I think I would rather take a chance on one of those as a starter for my young ones.

[bladeracer]

[quote="bladeracer"

I'm not sure it's possible to do much better with a .22LR rifle for under $1000 though, or much of a need for better than that.
I'm no kind of target shooter so I'm certain some members here could shoot much better than me with my own rifles.

What .22LR rifles are you getting significantly-sub-MoA out of at 100m?

I just did a quick search for long-range precision .22 rifles and found this.
https://www.precision22lr.com/post/most-accurate-22-rifle-out-of-the-box
https://www.precision22lr.com/22lr-bolt-action-rifle-spec-compari[/quote

That first comparison is a bit, No is very bulls**t. He states the way he made the chart and the decision was from reports that he got off forums not his actual testing. Thats just silly.

An Anschutz 1710 need to be in any comparison of accuracy out of the box tests. The Anschutz range just put most other rifles to shame. It is a brand name that can be trusted. I bought a Sako on brand name and was a little disappointed with the fit finish and quality of wood (not 22LR). I haven't seen a bad Annie as yet. I am tempted to buy one off Used Guns some come up very cheap. I think I would rather take a chance on one of those as a starter for my young ones.

Read the article.
It'z specific to Long-Range Rimfire Precision competition, not outright accuracy - is the 1710 suitable for that?

A quick Google also makes it 3.5 times more expensive.

[bladeracer]

My brother bought an Anschutz 64 secondhand, already set up for competition, based on the reputation. Unfortunately we still haven't managed to get it shooting as well as my Rugers. And yet the owner claimed he was regularly shooting it with excellent results.

[sungazer]

I did read the article both of them. There are just so many things you could say about it.
One the article was about what was the most accurate out of the Box there was no mention of $ limits. In the other article he found the Lithgow to be the most accurate by his testing. So many errors and contradictions it not worth taking note of any of it.

[Sergeant Hartman]

I don't think why you couldn't use an anschutz in a precision rifle competition. Its a traditional stock similar to lithgow or cz457

[SCJ429]

"SCJ429"]Last year at the Canberra Rimfire Fly the best group was 0.93 I think, at 200 metres using an Anschutz 54 action and Eley Tenex.

Outstanding shooting!
Was that way ahead or were others shooting similarly?

There are some blokes who can shoot exceptional groups but the conditions can catch you out. I shot in the same conditions but my group was about six inches. Nobody doing well is using a standard factory rifle except blokes with 2013 Anschutz or Fienwerkbau.

[bladeracer]

I did read the article both of them. There are just so many things you could say about it.
One the article was about what was the most accurate out of the Box there was no mention of $ limits. In the other article he found the Lithgow to be the most accurate by his testing. So many errors and contradictions it not worth taking note of any of it.

I'm not arguing with you, as I stated, it was the first thing I found when I Googled it, I'm sure there are many other articles online if you want to read something else. I didn't post it to sing the virtues of the RPR, despite that being the gist of this thread.

But I haven't seen a plethora of people complaining about poor accuracy with the RPR, though I'm sure there must be some bad ones. I struggle to believe that I happened to buy three Ruger .22's that all shoot very well, and virtually identically, and yet all of them are wild anomalies. And I'm not even a very good shooter, there must be owners out there shooting _much_ better with their Ruger's than I can with mine.

[Diamond Jim]

I'm a fan of CZ. My nephew has a Ruger 77/22 and it's a fine rifle and very accurate. The RPR concept doesn't grab me. I'm a blued steel and walnut bloke.

[sungazer]

As you know a pet pieve of mine are people / bloggers that just write up poor articles or mix a bit of emotional blackmail into a factual story. I have no problem with Rugers just this blogger making bold outright statements then finding out his sample size is very limited then the testing is flawed and the conclusions contradictory. Later in the article or the second one he states that the Lithgow was the most accurate.

Its nearly as bad as people that re post things like the 6.5 cread is better than the 308 because some bloke on the internet says so. Dont they teach critical reading in schools today? To check sources and put things in perspective. To make some self judgement based on experience and what you have been taught in school like physics, math whatever.

[mikejay]

I'm not arguing with you, as I stated, it was the first thing I found when I Googled it, I'm sure there are many other articles online if you want to read something else. I didn't post it to sing the virtues of the RPR, despite that being the gist of this thread.

But I haven't seen a plethora of people complaining about poor accuracy with the RPR, though I'm sure there must be some bad ones. I struggle to believe that I happened to buy three Ruger .22's that all shoot very well, and virtually identically, and yet all of them are wild anomalies. And I'm not even a very good shooter, there must be owners out there shooting _much_ better with their Ruger's than I can with mine.

The weird thing is, not one Olympic shooting event has ever been won by a rifle with the same build process Ruger use on their 22LR barrels. If you Google cold hammer forged barrels the advantages are that they're fast and cheap to make, and long lasting but the disadvantage is that they're not match grade or as accurate as other methods.

The standard or sporter chamber typically used in Ruger 22LR barrels is designed to accept as many different dimension rounds as possible, it's definitely not designed for accuracy.

Count yourself extremely luck that your three examples of cold forged barrels happen to to mated to three examples of sporter chambers that defy the limitations of their type, the odds are staggering.

Can I ask what rounds you rifles are using to get such phenomenal accuracy? I hope you don't say Stingers.

[Sergeant Hartman]

And come on mike, when are you joining the Australian benchrest team for the olympics

I always thought the rprr barrel was different than the ruger American. Ie they are not the same gun in a different chassis.

[mikejay]

And come on mike, when are you joining the Australian benchrest team for the olympics

I always thought the rprr barrel was different than the ruger American. Ie they are not the same gun in a different chassis.

I might if I can borrow one of those 3 Ruggers.

NFI on the American Rimfire. The RPRimfire definitely has the "feed me anything because I'm so loose" chamber. Measuring a spent casing shows sporter dimensions, I've tried to load a few of the RPRimfire's spent casings into my Savage and they don't fit by a lot.
Unfired match rounds just sort of drop in and you can feel the wobble,

I'm tempted to do a casting to see how much air gap / smooth bore / jump a round has to do before it hits the lands.

[bladeracer]

[quote="bladeracer"
I'm not arguing with you, as I stated, it was the first thing I found when I Googled it, I'm sure there are many other articles online if you want to read something else. I didn't post it to sing the virtues of the RPR, despite that being the gist of this thread.

But I haven't seen a plethora of people complaining about poor accuracy with the RPR, though I'm sure there must be some bad ones. I struggle to believe that I happened to buy three Ruger .22's that all shoot very well, and virtually identically, and yet all of them are wild anomalies. And I'm not even a very good shooter, there must be owners out there shooting _much_ better with their Ruger's than I can with mine.[/quote

The weird thing is, not one Olympic shooting event has ever been won by a rifle with the same build process Ruger use on their 22LR barrels. If you Google cold hammer forged barrels the advantages are that they're fast and cheap to make, and long lasting but the disadvantage is that they're not match grade or as accurate as other methods.

The standard or sporter chamber typically used in Ruger 22LR barrels is designed to accept as many different dimension rounds as possible, it's definitely not designed for accuracy.

Count yourself extremely luck that your three examples of cold forged barrels happen to to mated to three examples of sporter chambers that defy the limitations of their type, the odds are staggering.

Can I ask what rounds you rifles are using to get such phenomenal accuracy? I hope you don't say Stingers.

I don't judge any product based on how well it performs in the hands of people that are paid to use it

And I certainly do not want match chambers in my field rifles.

I am not the only bloke on the planet getting good performance from Ruger barrels, and I don't consider my rifles to be phenomenal shooters. With several types of ammo all three rifles will shoot _very_ poorly indeed, with the ammo they like, they shoot about as you'd hope any quality field rifle should shoot. I consider 1MoA at 50m to be good field accuracy in a .22LR non-competition rifle. 1MoA out at 100m is a very nice bonus, but far from phenomenal.
And my three Ruger rimfires are inline with the performance of my four Ruger centrefires, and my brother's. 243, and many, many other Ruger owners. I would suggest that rather than my winning the lottery every time I buy one, you maybe got the rare bad one. I don't blame you for hating the company for a bad experience.

Of the 75-odd types I've tried so far, the very best is SK High-Velocity, by a good margin. Unfortunately it was already discontinued before I got some to try, I only have maybe 100 rounds left, but it shoots easily under 1MoA. Second most accurate has been a tie between Eley Edge and CCI Standard Velocity, although Edge offers a more consistent group. At $1800 a case compared to $500 a case for the CCI, I just buy the Eley by the brick. I go through several cases of the CCI SV every year, as well as bricks of other ammo I bought for testing that doesn't shoot so great. I currently have nine .22LR rifles.

Stingers shoot poorly for me in everything, if I really feel the rare need to go high-velocity, I shoot CCI Velocitor for acceptable accuracy, but the CCI SV drops foxes just fine.

[bladeracer]

[quote="Ziad"And come on mike, when are you joining the Australian benchrest team for the olympics

I always thought the rprr barrel was different than the ruger American. Ie they are not the same gun in a different chassis.[/quote

I might if I can borrow one of those 3 Ruggers.

NFI on the American Rimfire. The RPRimfire definitely has the "feed me anything because I'm so loose" chamber. Measuring a spent casing shows sporter dimensions, I've tried to load a few of the RPRimfire's spent casings into my Savage and they don't fit by a lot.
Unfired match rounds just sort of drop in and you can feel the wobble,

I'm tempted to do a casting to see how much air gap / smooth bore / jump a round has to do before it hits the lands.

As I have zero interest in shooting competition, like the vast majority of people buying .22 rifles, why would I want a match chamber? That merely reduces my options. You can certainly consider all non-match chambered rifles with contempt if that's your thing, but it won't alter the reality of how well they work for the vast majority of people.

The RPR is the same basic receiver/bolt design, but is not the same rifle as the American - I have the Compact, the Target and the RPR The RPR has a removable barrel, the Americans are pressed-in. The bolts all swap okay, but the RPR has the bolt stop altered to allow you to use a centrefire length of throw to mimic the centrefire RPR for muscle memory training. All use the same trigger pack as far as I can tell, but I've never even tried to adjust them.

I can do casts of mine if you like, but Ruger has never claimed the chambers to be anything but standard SAAMI sporting specs, so I don't see what you hope to reveal.

[SCJ429]

The weird thing is, not one Olympic shooting event has ever been won by a rifle with the same build process Ruger use on their 22LR barrels. If you Google cold hammer forged barrels the advantages are that they're fast and cheap to make, and long lasting but the disadvantage is that they're not match grade or as accurate as other methods.

The standard or sporter chamber typically used in Ruger 22LR barrels is designed to accept as many different dimension rounds as possible, it's definitely not designed for accuracy.

Count yourself extremely luck that your three examples of cold forged barrels happen to to mated to three examples of sporter chambers that defy the limitations of their type, the odds are staggering.
.

Don't think that one style of barrel cannot be produced to match standard. Cut rifling is the least complicated to produce and for low volume manufactures it can be effective at producing high quality match barrels. Button rifled barrels are more complicated to produce but several aftermarket barrel makers use this approach and some factories like Anschutz make high quality match barrels this way. Hammer forged barrels are ten times more complicated to make and need considerable investment in tooling to produce. They also can produce excellent barrels but big manufactures are usually making barrels for a price point. Sako hammer forged barrels are some of the best factory barrels produced.

I have seen as many poor Savage barrels as Ruger if you look as similar price point rifles. Ruger barrels have come along way in the last 20 years. I would not place Savage ahead of Ruger in terms of rifle quality.

Don't think that because you factory chamber has slightly smaller dimensions than another chamber, you have some sort of accuracy advantage. Accuracy International deliberately makes their chambers on the loose side, but courtesy of a good barrel they shoot well. I am sure if you measures fired brass out of some other Savages, you would find some on the bigger side but still within Savages tolerances. You also may find some Ruger chambers where your brass will not fit easily. Blade does not have the only three Rugers on the planet that shoot well, to suggest it is a little argumentative.

[bladeracer]

There are some blokes who can shoot exceptional groups but the conditions can catch you out. I shot in the same conditions but my group was about six inches. Nobody doing well is using a standard factory rifle except blokes with 2013 Anschutz or Fienwerkbau.

I get around 120mm for 10rds at 200m, with an occasional sub-100mm group, but I don't think I've ever had ideal conditions here for that sort of shooting.

[SCJ429]

The conditions on that day were far from ideal, hot with a gusty wind, very impressive shooting. I struggled to keep every shot on the target. Very different from shooting indoors at 50 metres. My best ever group was a little under three inches.