f> Best Optics for 10/22? - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

Best Optics for 10/22?

This is a discussion on Best Optics for 10/22? within the Optics forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; I used to be a snob about not needing artificial help for 100 yards or less. That was then and this is now -- open ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Optics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old May 4th, 2013, 08:20 AM   #1
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Owings Mills MD
Posts: 3
Frebitz is on a distinguished road
Best Optics for 10/22?

I used to be a snob about not needing artificial help for 100 yards or less. That was then and this is now -- open sights don't work for me anymore. What are you using and how are they working for you?

Thanks.



Frebitz is offline  
Advertisements
Old May 4th, 2013, 08:44 AM   #2
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 670
Markbo is on a distinguished road
I use everything from a 36X target dot Weaver to a red dot no magnification. Depends on the use, doesn't it? A good Simmons 3.5-10X are inexpensive and work well on 10/22s or you can step up in magnification and try Mueller scopes.

If money is no object any number of Leopolds will do.
Markbo is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 09:11 AM   #3
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: ky
Posts: 64
hardtackwon is on a distinguished road
I'm using 3-9 variable low cost on all my 22's, but I'm happy with golf ball sized groups at 25 yds, haven;t down 50-70 yet, but it should do baseball and softball sized, which is good enough for me
hardtackwon is offline  
 
Old May 4th, 2013, 09:39 AM   #4
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: a free state, USA
Posts: 2,523
ZommyGun is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frebitz View Post
I used to be a snob about not needing artificial help for 100 yards or less. That was then and this is now -- open sights don't work for me anymore. What are you using and how are they working for you?

Thanks.
I have two scopes I use on my 10/22s...

One is way too heavy at 20oz...it's a 4-12x40mm AO/EFR/TT-1/8 moa... it lacks magnification for shooting small at 100 yards...4x is too much magnification for shooting small at 5 yards...but with EFR the 4x is tolerable at 10 yards but still annoyingly high magnification to me...I like having it available for bench rest shooting...and I have it set very close to the same eye level as my smaller scope so when they get swapped out the cheek rest is still very good...additionally...the eye relief on the big scope at 12x is less than the small scope at full power...and my cheek rest ramps up...so the combined eye-relief and eye level changes are compensated for...

Anything over 40mm objective will require and awkwardly high mount to clear the barrel...making setting the cheek rest to the correct height for proper use a lot more difficult...

The other scope is a Leupold VX-1 2-7x28mm rimfire which is parallax free at 60 yards... no AO...it is the ideal size/weight for a 10/22 that is used primarily for off hand shooting and hunting...

The 7x is good enough at 50-60 yards especially given that is the parallax free distance...the 2x is really sweet at point blank range even w/o any parallax adjustment...it is not good for shooting small at 100 yards...you need a match grade barrel and quality ammo to shoot small at 100yards with a 10/22 anyway...if you are shooting at 1 gallon milk jugs with a factory barrel and cheap bulk ammo the 7x w/o the AO is fine...

The IDEAL scope IMO for the 10/22 for the average shooter doing mostly off hand and hunting and only trying to shoot small at 75 yards or less is a 3-9x33mm AO/EFR scope with low profile finger turrets and 1/4 moa adjustments...

The Leupold is available with fine duplex which I love for shooting small...

Weaver makes the RV-9 which is a 3-9x32mm AO/EFR and costs a lot less than the Leupold equivalent...people say the Weaver is just as good if not better...

If money were no object...I would want the Leupold VX-2 3-9x32mm AO/EFR with fine duplex for mine...

Both are only 10oz in weight...and you can mount them as low as any smaller scope...

I considered getting the Weaver...possibly I should have...decided to got with the Leupold 2-7 for less money...and slightly less weight...I like it...a lot...
ZommyGun is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 09:56 AM   #5
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: a free state, USA
Posts: 2,523
ZommyGun is on a distinguished road
There is a lot of interesting "stuff" in this thread...

Low_Lower_Lowest


people assume...incorrectly...that I am advocating one thing or another...not so...the exception being the importance of the correct height/style cheek rest for you...

The things to note in this thread are the outcomes of using particular rail/ring mounting combos with regard to what will be adequate height to clear the barrel and what will NOT prior to selecting rings...the generic charts and references to "low, med, high" rings are nearly worthless imo...five different style rings all called "low" will not be the same height...the various rails are different heights too...

Prior to selecting a scope SIZE and STYLE and FEATURES...make sure you go to school at the NSSF on youtube with master sniper school instructor Ryan Cleckner...take into account how you will use the gun and at what distances and how small of a target you will be satisfied with...pay particular attention to the method he teaches for setting up your cheek rest...an awesome scope without a proper cheek rest is not as good as a lesser scope with perfect cheek rest...the cheek rest for the factory gun is for the factory sights...which are set at approximately 1/2" above the center of the bore...odds are you will get a scope with an eye level of approximately 1-7/16" above the center of the bore...makes it very difficult to use the scope correctly...

One more thing...the factory rail on the 10/22 is UNDER SIZED on the width for Weaver Brand, Weaver style rings...I highly recommend getting a better one...the cheap Weaver brand tip off rails are very nice for under $10 and fit perfectly with low cost Weaver and low cost Leupold Rifleman aluminum rings which are both ideal imo for the average 1022...
ZommyGun is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #6
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,478
drt4lfe will become famous soon enoughdrt4lfe will become famous soon enough
I use a 3x9 Nikon, it is very clear and clicks are very good....
drt4lfe is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 05:56 PM   #7
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 740
Joewisc will become famous soon enoughJoewisc will become famous soon enough
I got 2 Simmons on 2 of my 10-22's and a BSA on the third. For 50 bucks can't go wrong. Get plenty of nice groups at 50 and 100 yards and at 71 I don't have the steadiest hands in the world or the best eyes. Can't justify the logic of putting a scope that costs twice as much as the rifle when you can get good results with glass much cheaper.
Joewisc is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 06:32 PM   #8
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 568
JD0x0 is on a distinguished road
I like variable power optics. Even more on rimfire, where there's not much shock to the scope. The power is up to the shooter and what he/she wants/needs. IMO 3x should be minimum magnification. I can use 3x magnification indoors, with targets at 10 feet. I would suggest 3-9x, 3-12x, or 3-15x
JD0x0 is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 06:58 PM   #9
 
mishtub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,219
mishtub is on a distinguished road
Frebitz, what do use your 10/22 for mostly? Plinking, target shooting, hunting, varmit control., etc?
A red-dot sight makes for faster target aquisition but less "pin-point" accuracy than is achievable with a magnified optic (scope).
I have both and use them for different purposes. Clarification of usage might help.
mishtub is offline  
Old May 4th, 2013, 07:36 PM   #10
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,970
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

Frebitz, I think ZommyGun covered most of the technical aspects quite well so I will try to cover some of the practical aspects.

I own a lot of different 22 rifles and gaggle of scopes from a $30 Simmons to a $550 Leupold. My guns are married up with scopes that match their intended use, the rifle's accuracy potential, and the cost of the gun. I think it's silly to put a cheap scope on a match grade bench rest rifle just as it is silly to put an expensive scope on a cheap rifle.

Most scope manufacturers make "rimfire" scopes that are parallax corrected for 50 yards, versus 100~150 yards for high power rifle scopes. So .... I would start by selecting a rimfire scope.

Magnification can be a great advantage but can also be a severe disadvantage. Most people tend to buy scopes with too much magnification. This results in a more narrow field of view, making it harder to spot game or even a target. Over magnification also adds distortion, it makes eye relief critical, and it amplifies "wiggle", making it very difficult to hold the cross hairs on target. The standard for a 22 rifle is 1X per 10 yards so a 4X would be about perfect for 40 yard shots, however it can easily be used for closer or further shots ... all depending on the shooter's abilities. Considering the optimum shooting distance for a 22 LR is from 25 to 75 yards, the best match for a general purpose scope would be a 2~7X. This would provide the optimum magnification for 20~70 yards and can easily be stretched to 100 yards. A 3~9X will also work well (30~90 yards).

Factory 10/22s are not the most accurate guns in the world nor are they the most expensive. As such, I suggest a medium grade scope ... in the $75~$100 price range. This price range seems to match the rifle's quality and probably exceeds a 10/22's accuracy potential. Scopes in this price range are made in China but they have good quality optics, are reasonably rugged, and will hold zero quite well. Don't expect premium grade optical or mechanical quality though ... for that you will spend $150 or more ... way more if you go with a Leupold or other top-of-the-line brand.

Last is the objective lens (front lens). Larger lenses capture more light but they are also heavier and require higher mounts. The general rule is to use the lowest mounts possible that will allow the objective lens bell to clear the barrel. A 30mm objective lens is good for a 22 ... certainly no more than 40mm unless it is a bench rest rifle.

So in summary, get a rimfire scope, try to match magnification with your expected shooting distances. Look for a 30mm~40mm objective lens. With scopes, price usually dictates quality so let your wallet be your guide. Here's a short document I wrote that may help explain some of the ins and outs of scopes. It is in the Forum Library, titled "Scope Dope", however you need at least 10 posts to get Library access. http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html
Iowegan is offline  
Old May 6th, 2013, 07:37 AM   #11
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 670
Markbo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZommyGun View Post
....the cheek rest for the factory gun is for the factory sights...which are set at approximately 1/2" above the center of the bore...odds are you will get a scope with an eye level of approximately 1-7/16" above the center of the bore...makes it very difficult to use the scope correctly...

One more thing...the factory rail on the 10/22 is UNDER SIZED on the width for Weaver Brand, Weaver style rings...I highly recommend getting a better one...the cheap Weaver brand tip off rails are very nice for under $10 and fit perfectly with low cost Weaver and low cost Leupold Rifleman aluminum rings which are both ideal imo for the average 1022...
That presumes use of the factory carbine stock of course. The Weaver rail is the T09. Available almost anywhere they have rings for around $10 in blue & silver.
Markbo is offline  
Old May 6th, 2013, 05:28 PM   #12
 
Redleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 3,826
Redleg will become famous soon enoughRedleg will become famous soon enough
Redfield Revenge on my 10/22! Love it! Ragged holes at 25 yards with one or two flyers here and there.


Last edited by Redleg; May 6th, 2013 at 05:31 PM.
Redleg is offline  
Old May 6th, 2013, 07:30 PM   #13
 
Model 52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 721
Model 52 will become famous soon enough
IMHO, too many shooter put too large a scope on their rifles and it's usually mounted far too high.

Even when the stock is cut to accommodate a high line of sight optic, it's still less than optimum as the higher line of sight over the bore centerline has an impact on the angle of departure. That is doubly true on a .22LR that is by definition zeroed at fairly close ranges of 25, 50 or 100 yards, and already has a very rainbow like trajectory.

In terms of magnification, and objective sizes more is often not better. For example, a 10/22 is a light handy carbine - until you saddle it with a large 40mm or 50mm objective variable scope. It then becomes top heavy and it's got way more magnification than it needs.

In addition, large magnification does not equate to sharp resolution unless the quality of the lenses is quite high. For example, there are many low end scopes with 20x, 24x or 36x magnification in 44mm or 50mm objective lenses and all of them will get fuzzy and lose resolution at the higher magnifications and they will also not have adequate light except possibly under bright sunlight conditions.

The reasons for that are pretty clear - no pun intended. Ideally you want an exit pupil no smaller than about 4 for low light/cloudy day conditions (and 5 is better). The exit pupil is found by dividing the objective lens by the magnification, so a 20x scope with a 44 mm objective will have an exit pupil of only 2.2, and that's about the size of your pupil in bright high noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day. Realistically, you 20x variable scope with a 44mm objective than is limited to about 10x on the average day before the image quality goes south in terms of both brightness and resolution.

Worse, large objectives are harder to make with the required precision, so an inexpensive scope with low quality optics and a large objective lens still won't deliver high resolution even in good light. You'll note distortion out at the edges of the field of view, and worst case in a really low quality scope, the center of the scope will have some distortion as well.

Also, cheap scopes have lower quality lens coatings with greater internal reflection and greater light loss. Variables also add 2 or 3 more lenses (depending on the design) and lose even more light to internal reflection than a fixed power scope. In addition, inexpensive variables tend to have alignment issues and the zero will often wander around as the magnification is changed.

Inexpensive scopes also tend to have single piece lenses that suffer from chromatic aberration, while higher quality scopes will use either achromatic lenses made from a doublet of two types of glass, or will be made from an extra low dispersion glass (ED). Chromatic aberration is essentially an issue of different wavelengths of light coming to different focal points, meaning the image will be fuzzy and lack a sharp focus as the wavelengths cannot converge at the same point. Achromatic and ED lenses correct for this and allow a sharp focus, which equates directly to better resolution.

Finally, an inexpensive scope will not normally have consistent and repeatable adjustments. There will often be back lash in the screws, so an adjustment won't show any effect for the first few clicks, and then it will continue to move over the course of a few shots until it rests on the same face again, meaning you usually overshoot the adjustment you wanted. It's also not uncommon to find they are not properly aligned with the crosshair, so that each adjustment has both a horizontal and vertical component. It's livable if you never adjust the sights for windage or elevation - assuming the scope will hold a zero - but establishing that zero is never enjoyable.

So... all things being considered, you are better off buying a lower magnification optic with better quality lenses that will allow less light loss, sharper focus and better resolution. You'll see .22 caliber holes at 100 yards with a quality 2-7x, 3-9x or fixed power 6x scope easier and with far greater sharpness that you will with a cheap 4-16x or 6.5-20x scope.

I have either Leupold 3-9x33mm or Leupold 2-7x33 scopes on all my .22LRs - with the exception of an Anschutz that has a fixed power Leupold M8 12x40mm scope.

At 9x a 33 mm scope has a 3.67mm exit pupil, and at 7x the exit pupil is 4.71 - nearly ideal even in low light conditions. The optical quality is very good with sharp resolution from edge to edge, the optics are well aligned with no change in zero as the power is changed and the adjustments are back lash free, consistent and repeatable.

Consequently the light weight and smaller footprint of those scopes, combined with decent quality optics and rock solid adjustments means everything it brings to the rifle is actually usable, instead of just marketing hype. And, since it's a 33mm scope, on low rings and a standard Weaver rail it tends to be low and close to the barrel, minimizing problems establishing a consistent cheek weld.

I should add here that I don't own a .22 rifle zeroed at less than 100 yards and I normally shoot at 100-200 yards with them.

Again, all you need is enough magnification to see the target, you don't need over kill on a field rifle, and you don't want to put yourself in the position of trading resolution and image brightness for excessive magnification.

Now if you plan on bench rest shooting at paper targets, then more magnification is a benefit to more accurately see and bi-sect the X-ring - but again I'd go for quality and I'd choose a fixed power scope of moderate 12x or 16x magnification over a 24x or 36x scope, especially if I ever planned on shooting it prone rather than off a bench. With my 12x40mm M8, the exit pupil is still 3.3, so while it's not a low light scope it still delivers good image resolution and brightness even on all but the darkest over cast days. More power would mostly be a detriment to the real world shooting I do with it.

On a standard 10/22 carbine, I feel a quality variable in the 2-7 range is ideal. It offers enough magnification to see targets out to the effective range of the carbine, the low end of the range offers the wide field of view needed to see and acquire short range and/or moving targets, and it's not overly large in size for the proportions of the carbine.

Here's my 10/22 with a Leupold VX1 2-7x33 on low millet rings and a Weaver T0-9 base. It's as large and as high as I'd go on a 10/22 carbine.


Last edited by Model 52; May 6th, 2013 at 07:33 PM.
Model 52 is offline  
Old May 6th, 2013, 07:39 PM   #14
Commies Piss me Off
 
EL Pistoffo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 445
EL Pistoffo is on a distinguished road
Everyone above pretty much covered all the topics.

I myself won't spend too much on an optic relative to the cost of the firearm.

I have a TD model with a Bushnell TRS-25 Red Dot ($85) for quick short range target acquisition and it works great.

I have a carbine model with TacSol light weight barrel and mounted a fixed power 4x33 Nikon Prostaff scope ($80) and I love it. Nice quality optics for great price.

I almost went with the Redfield Revenge 2-7 power similar to above but then found the Nikon at that great price. The Redfield was around $130-$150 I think and it's a great quality optic as well.

If you decide on a 2-7 power scope go with either the Redfield or the Nikon. They are both pretty much equal in quality. I would choose the one thats at a better price at that moment.

Nikon ProStaff 4x32 Rimfire Scope
[IMG][/IMG]

Last edited by EL Pistoffo; May 6th, 2013 at 07:47 PM.
EL Pistoffo is offline  
Old May 6th, 2013, 07:52 PM   #15
Commies Piss me Off
 
EL Pistoffo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 445
EL Pistoffo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model 52 View Post
IMHO, too many shooter put too large a scope on their rifles and it's usually mounted far too high.

Even when the stock is cut to accommodate a high line of sight optic, it's still less than optimum as the higher line of sight over the bore centerline has an impact on the angle of departure. That is doubly true on a .22LR that is by definition zeroed at fairly close ranges of 25, 50 or 100 yards, and already has a very rainbow like trajectory.

In terms of magnification, and objective sizes more is often not better. For example, a 10/22 is a light handy carbine - until you saddle it with a large 40mm or 50mm objective variable scope. It then becomes top heavy and it's got way more magnification than it needs.

In addition, large magnification does not equate to sharp resolution unless the quality of the lenses is quite high. For example, there are many low end scopes with 20x, 24x or 36x magnification in 44mm or 50mm objective lenses and all of them will get fuzzy and lose resolution at the higher magnifications and they will also not have adequate light except possibly under bright sunlight conditions.

The reasons for that are pretty clear - no pun intended. Ideally you want an exit pupil no smaller than about 4 for low light/cloudy day conditions (and 5 is better). The exit pupil is found by dividing the objective lens by the magnification, so a 20x scope with a 44 mm objective will have an exit pupil of only 2.2, and that's about the size of your pupil in bright high noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day. Realistically, you 20x variable scope with a 44mm objective than is limited to about 10x on the average day before the image quality goes south in terms of both brightness and resolution.

Worse, large objectives are harder to make with the required precision, so an inexpensive scope with low quality optics and a large objective lens still won't deliver high resolution even in good light. You'll note distortion out at the edges of the field of view, and worst case in a really low quality scope, the center of the scope will have some distortion as well.

Also, cheap scopes have lower quality lens coatings with greater internal reflection and greater light loss. Variables also add 2 or 3 more lenses (depending on the design) and lose even more light to internal reflection than a fixed power scope. In addition, inexpensive variables tend to have alignment issues and the zero will often wander around as the magnification is changed.

Inexpensive scopes also tend to have single piece lenses that suffer from chromatic aberration, while higher quality scopes will use either achromatic lenses made from a doublet of two types of glass, or will be made from an extra low dispersion glass (ED). Chromatic aberration is essentially an issue of different wavelengths of light coming to different focal points, meaning the image will be fuzzy and lack a sharp focus as the wavelengths cannot converge at the same point. Achromatic and ED lenses correct for this and allow a sharp focus, which equates directly to better resolution.

Finally, an inexpensive scope will not normally have consistent and repeatable adjustments. There will often be back lash in the screws, so an adjustment won't show any effect for the first few clicks, and then it will continue to move over the course of a few shots until it rests on the same face again, meaning you usually overshoot the adjustment you wanted. It's also not uncommon to find they are not properly aligned with the crosshair, so that each adjustment has both a horizontal and vertical component. It's livable if you never adjust the sights for windage or elevation - assuming the scope will hold a zero - but establishing that zero is never enjoyable.

So... all things being considered, you are better off buying a lower magnification optic with better quality lenses that will allow less light loss, sharper focus and better resolution. You'll see .22 caliber holes at 100 yards with a quality 2-7x, 3-9x or fixed power 6x scope easier and with far greater sharpness that you will with a cheap 4-16x or 6.5-20x scope.

I have either Leupold 3-9x33mm or Leupold 2-7x33 scopes on all my .22LRs - with the exception of an Anschutz that has a fixed power Leupold M8 12x40mm scope.

At 9x a 33 mm scope has a 3.67mm exit pupil, and at 7x the exit pupil is 4.71 - nearly ideal even in low light conditions. The optical quality is very good with sharp resolution from edge to edge, the optics are well aligned with no change in zero as the power is changed and the adjustments are back lash free, consistent and repeatable.

Consequently the light weight and smaller footprint of those scopes, combined with decent quality optics and rock solid adjustments means everything it brings to the rifle is actually usable, instead of just marketing hype. And, since it's a 33mm scope, on low rings and a standard Weaver rail it tends to be low and close to the barrel, minimizing problems establishing a consistent cheek weld.

I should add here that I don't own a .22 rifle zeroed at less than 100 yards and I normally shoot at 100-200 yards with them.

Again, all you need is enough magnification to see the target, you don't need over kill on a field rifle, and you don't want to put yourself in the position of trading resolution and image brightness for excessive magnification.

Now if you plan on bench rest shooting at paper targets, then more magnification is a benefit to more accurately see and bi-sect the X-ring - but again I'd go for quality and I'd choose a fixed power scope of moderate 12x or 16x magnification over a 24x or 36x scope, especially if I ever planned on shooting it prone rather than off a bench. With my 12x40mm M8, the exit pupil is still 3.3, so while it's not a low light scope it still delivers good image resolution and brightness even on all but the darkest over cast days. More power would mostly be a detriment to the real world shooting I do with it.

On a standard 10/22 carbine, I feel a quality variable in the 2-7 range is ideal. It offers enough magnification to see targets out to the effective range of the carbine, the low end of the range offers the wide field of view needed to see and acquire short range and/or moving targets, and it's not overly large in size for the proportions of the carbine.

Here's my 10/22 with a Leupold VX1 2-7x33 on low millet rings and a Weaver T0-9 base. It's as large and as high as I'd go on a 10/22 carbine.

This scope was absolute first choice's for a while but I couldn't grab a good enough deal on ebay. They kept getting bidded to high.
EL Pistoffo is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Optics


Search tags for this page

best 10/22 scope

,
best scoop for ruger 10/22
,

best scope for 10/22

,
best scope for a ruger 10/22
,

best scope for ruger 10/22

,
best scopes for 10/22
,
good scope for 10/22
,
optic for 10-22
,

ruger 10/22 scope

,
ruger 10/22 scopes
,
scope for 10/22
,
scope for ruger 10/22
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Optics 22/45 bliss Optics 8 June 17th, 2013 10:21 PM
Hi viz optics Madstyle1 Optics 1 August 11th, 2012 12:10 PM
AR-15 Optics newbiereloader21 Optics 22 May 4th, 2012 11:12 PM
Optics regarding the new 10/22 MTNShewter Optics 1 February 14th, 2012 10:24 AM
Optics for 22/45 357MAGNOLE Ruger Rimfires 4 December 16th, 2011 04:31 AM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.