Thoughts on the RUGER PRECISION RIMFIRE RIFLE?

[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.

[mikejay]

This is probably my best day so far, was late last year at St. Mary's indoor @ 50m. All the "tacks" were 2 shots each except the sighters at the bottom and the 10 shot group. I managed to get 2 shots same hole or as close to it on some.

[bladeracer]

This is probably my best day so far, was late last year at St. Mary's indoor @ 50m. All the "tacks" were 2 shots each except the sighters at the bottom and the 10 shot group. I managed to get 2 shots same hole or as close to it on some.

Very nice shooting!
I would love to try shooting with no wind at all

[mikejay]

An update on my bro's re barreled RPRimfire, I finally got to have a go myself. It shoots pretty good. 50m at St. Mary's Indoor. SK Rifle Match

[Woden]

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.

Interesting. What did that cost you to do at SISC?

[Redman1]

I just bought one in 22lr , been running cci standard through it with good results at 50m but cci standard really drops off dramatically after about the 65m mark, has anyone on here tried any hyper velocity ammo and if so what was accuracy like?

[bladeracer]

I just bought one in 22lr , been running cci standard through it with good results at 50m but cci standard really drops off dramatically after about the 65m mark, has anyone on here tried any hyper velocity ammo and if so what was accuracy like?

Do you mean their accuracy drops off after 50m?
I had amazing accuracy from SK High Velocity, but it's discontinued. I use CCI Std Vel out to hundreds of meters. It's good for 1MoA to 100m and 10rd 100mm groups at 200m for me.

I've tried most of the hypers but they dump velocity very quickly.

The Velocitor is worth a try though, accuracy is not awful in mine.

[Redman1]

I zeroed it in 1" high at 50m but then shoot at 100m and it shoots 4" low , descent groups just way low (cci standard)
I will try the velocitors, they should shoot a bit flatter also I hunt with my 22's the standard and sub ammo doesn't seem to have the hitting power,
I have a BSA that shoots super x 37gr hp 1340 fps with very good accuracy , I will give them a try too,
Regards Paul ,

[bladeracer]

I zeroed it in 1" high at 50m but then shoot at 100m and it shoots 4" low , descent groups just way low (cci standard)
I will try the velocitors, they should shoot a bit flatter also I hunt with my 22's the standard and sub ammo doesn't seem to have the hitting power,
I have a BSA that shoots super x 37gr hp 1340 fps with very good accuracy , I will give them a try too,
Regards Paul ,

Trajectory shouldn't really be a problem unless you are spotlighting, when it's very difficult to judge ranges. I'll take accuracy over flatter trajectory every time.
CCI Std Velocity drops foxes just fine out to 50m at least with heart/lung hits, but it is accurate enough for me for brain shots to 100m. A subsonic round-nose bullet in the perfect spot is far better than a high-velocity hollow-point in the general vicinity. Remember that millions of small game animals, and a lot of larger game, have been taken with whatever the cheapest .22LR round-nose subsonic bullet on the market was at the time, and for well over a century now. You don't need the latest sooper-dooper .22LR cartridge to do the job.

[Ziege]

two mates of mine have these, both paid in excess of $1200 for the gun, both put on high quality scopes, both have spent in excess of $2100

one of their rifles isn't as accurate as my $450 Ruger American rimfire with a $65 scope on it. The other is only comparable with my cheap RAR.

Conclusion, they're a Tacticool accessory and only buy if you wanna look like Chris Kyle for some reason (probably a bit of a stroker)

[Redman1]

I haven't really mucked around with 22lr properly , I'll keep all that in mind blade racer , thanks for the advice mate!