[Mr. Snuffalupagus]

the Carbine barrel band...so does it do anything except look completely stupid?


it looks like a damn afterthought. like some joker decided "hey, the front end of this good lookin' little rifle needs to look totally retarded, I know!!! I'll stick a superfluous chunk of plastic on it with a screw that'll poke the owner or catch on stuffs."


I guess what I'm saying is... can I delete that thing or will it effect the accuracy of the rifle?

I finally picked up a 10/22 last week (about time eh? ) - got me an SS carbine. niftly lil gun... not as well made as my Old man's 1970s era 10/22. Mine seems to have more plastic parts...

LIKE THIS UGLY ASS BARREL BAND... (did I mention I hate it )

don't really want to mod the rifle - so I don't intend to re stock it... but I just might if only to get rid of the damn barrel band

 

[Holmes375]

Many owners whom like the factory carbine wood and barrel band relieve the upper portion slightly so it has no contact with the barrel. I've done a couple of the metal bands but never a plastic one.

I agree re: plastic on the current rifles, its really too bad. Mine are all older versions with the metal trigger guards and such.

You might watch eBay for a metal band or perhaps a take-off sporter stock whih has nicer ergonomics and doesn't use e barrel band.

The Hogue stocks are inexpensive and very nice on the 10/22s for general use. You can get them with the rubber overmold or a hard nylon exterior depending upon your preference.

 

[BlkHawk73]

As the 10/22 is heavily models visually from the M1 carbine, the barrel band was brought in and as a place for a swivel attachment. Other than that, there's no actual performance reason to retain it on the gun. Just a matter of taste.
as for the apparent dislike for "plastic"... Those polymer parts are stronger than the older alloy equivalents. Funny how many will find soooo much of an issue with "plastic", yet somehow forget about Glocks, Sigs, HK's and all the other polymer framed pistols. Hate to think how they feel about all the "plastic" AR stuff that so popular.

 

[Holmes375]

....Funny how many will find soooo much of an issue with "plastic", yet somehow forget about Glocks, Sigs, HK's and all the other polymer framed pistols. Hate to think how they feel about all the "plastic" AR stuff that so popular.

I think people are allowed a preference for plastic or metal without ridicule.

A Ruger 10/22 has become an American classic rimfire. Its not a Glock or an AR.

The plastic trigger housing is not an improvement over the metal trigger guard in any way other than cost control. Ask any 10/22 builder which guard he'd prefer to use.

 

[Red Cent]

You can remove the barrel band and reshape your stock. A lot of us do. Actually, I would suggest doing it and float the barrel at the same time.

 

[Mr. Snuffalupagus]

As the 10/22 is heavily models visually from the M1 carbine, the barrel band was brought in and as a place for a swivel attachment. Other than that, there's no actual performance reason to retain it on the gun. Just a matter of taste.
as for the apparent dislike for "plastic"... Those polymer parts are stronger than the older alloy equivalents. Funny how many will find soooo much of an issue with "plastic", yet somehow forget about Glocks, Sigs, HK's and all the other polymer framed pistols. Hate to think how they feel about all the "plastic" AR stuff that so popular.

1. the damn thing serves no purpose - i don't see how it would make a good sling attachment point.

2. An aluminum band of similar dimensions would be MUCH stronger than this piece of crap. as is the trigger guard on my Old Man's 10/22 compared to the newer model. Glocks are made from a proprietary fiber reinforced polymer - not injection molded bottom of the barrel nylon.
there is a difference between plastic chosen for cost control, and advanced plastics developed for lighter weight and superior strength, please don't presume to lecture me on the subject.

 

[Crowcifier666]

...please don't presume to lecture me on the subject.

Just let him....he loves it :lol:

 

[BlkHawk73]

I think people are allowed a preference for plastic or metal without ridicule.

A Ruger 10/22 has become an American classic rimfire. Its not a Glock or an AR.

The plastic trigger housing is not an improvement over the metal trigger guard in any way other than cost control. Ask any 10/22 builder which guard he'd prefer to use.

1. There wasn't ridicule. There was however a comparison between two "plastic" items, one ppl seem to have an issue with simply because it was changed to that material while the others have used "plastic" all along.
2. If it was entirely cost control, why then is it just these parts that received the treatment? Certainly if it is such a cost controlling measure, a lot of other parts across the Ruger model line as well as other manufacturers would change as well. These newer parts are indeed of a stronger material and do allow a more consistent manufacturing process and do allow for keeping tighter, more consistent tolerances. Simply having a bunch of ppl wanting to use the alloy housings doesn't make the "plastic" ones any less of quality , strength, etc. I does however show that ppl are very much unable to accept change. Much of that is due to ppl simply not understanding the material itself. To them, because it's synthetic, they see it as "plastic" and group that in with any other common plastic such as that used in toys. These folks simply lack the info regarding the material so they discount it as inferior. None have yet to be able to explain how it's so inferior to use it in a trigger housing and barrel band, you know that band they remove anyways, and the better auto pistols such as the aforementioned Glock, HK, Sig, etc... Guess those companies do it for cost saving as well and make inferior products.

 

[BlkHawk73]

1. the damn thing serves no purpose - i don't see how it would make a good sling attachment point.

2. An aluminum band of similar dimensions would be MUCH stronger than this piece of crap. as is the trigger guard on my Old Man's 10/22 compared to the newer model. Glocks are made from a proprietary fiber reinforced polymer - not injection molded bottom of the barrel nylon.
there is a difference between plastic chosen for cost control, and advanced plastics developed for lighter weight and superior strength, please don't presume to lecture me on the subject.

1. You've already gotten it in your head of what you want to believe as fact so no lecture would sink in anyways. Can't teach the ones that are too closed minded to listen and/or think.

2. So you've actually tested your statements and proven the alloy parts are stronger? Hmmm, when was the last time anyone had an issue with one of either material breaking anyways? Been playing the 10/22 game a loooong time and never seen it happen. Then again, you seem to know what the composition of Ruger's material is too. Odd since the material you say Glock uses, a fiver reinforced polymer, is what Ruger uses as well. Funny, though...the same "bottom of the barrel nylon" used for these parts is the same that Ruger uses for the control housings on the LCR revolvers, the frames of the SR-series pistols and the current P-series pistols. Hmmm, nobody whining about those, nor spouting off how they're inferior and prone to breaking.

Well, off to the gun room and work on another 10/22. Think I'll use a polymer housing on this next one.

Just let him....he loves it

Thanx. At least someone's able to give info and not just smart-ass remarks.

 

[Red Cent]

It is not, necessarily, what you say but how you say it. And this forum has a couple or three members that are lacking in social grace. Excluding GunKid, of course. He knows not what he does.

 

[Mr. Snuffalupagus]

anyway I just wanted to make sure the barrel band didn't do anything to the accuracy of the gun if I were to remove it.

even if it were aluminum I'd want to take it off - I just don't like the "look" of barrel bands.
the fact that the existing one is a cheap ass chunk of plastic with no redeeming qualities (i mean look at the bolt it comes with - it looks like it was MADE to poke or snag on things) just reinforces my desire to have it off. at least if it were aluminum I'd be able to sell it on Ebay or in the forums and actually get better than 2.00 for it.


this asshole that thinks he needs to lecture me needs to step off -
I have nothing against Polymer construction, never did... I mean I did actually buy the all weather model for the stainless barrel, and the black PLASTIC stock.

 

[TMB]

My 10/22 is more accurate with the barrel band on.

 

[ruger9]

IMO, the carbine looks far uglier with the band OFF than it does with it on. Unless you're planning on sanding the stock down and refinishing, the band-less carbine looks far more "stupid" than the banded one.

If you don't want the band, buy a Sporter or Compact.

 

[KMO]

+1 for the Hogue Stock

Someone already mentioned the Hogue overmolded stock for the 10/22. Both of mine are in Hogue stocks, and I've found them to be superior to wood stocks (even though down deep, I'm a wood stock purist). I've found that the barrel & action, once secured well with a good takedown screw, fit into the Hogue stock much more securely than in a wood stock. And, of course, there is no chintzy/cheesy barrel band to contend with.

Hogue OverMolded Rifle Stock Ruger 10/22 Standard Barrel Channel

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

a small amount of band pressure - and the stock inletting checked for any very tight interference w/the barrel and clearanced to remedy - usually enhances group tightness.
many target rifles have a free-float barrel with a small amount of pressure on the barrel at the tip of the fore-stock.
of more importance likely is a good trigger and tight headspace - this takes some time and work.
I just bought 2 new 10/22's at the dick's sale and plan to check the bands and stock inletting for binding, but yet keep the band for sling attachment

 

[jim580]

I like the looks of the barrel band. It's the stock that needs to be fixed.

 

[Mr. Snuffalupagus]

Someone already mentioned the Hogue overmolded stock for the 10/22. Both of mine are in Hogue stocks, and I've found them to be superior to wood stocks (even though down deep, I'm a wood stock purist). I've found that the barrel & action, once secured well with a good takedown screw, fit into the Hogue stock much more securely than in a wood stock. And, of course, there is no chintzy/cheesy barrel band to contend with.

Hogue OverMolded Rifle Stock Ruger 10/22 Standard Barrel Channel

I've heard mixed reviews on the houge overmold -
Not that I'm looking to drive tacks but I've seen a few claims that they cause some accuracy loss -any truth to this?

I like the look,
and I have a Houge AR grip on My Troy MCS mini, and My P89 -so I'm a fan of the soft rubba molded over the hard core feel.

 

[Crowcifier666]

I like the looks of the barrel band. It's the stock that needs to be fixed.

Nice set of twins jim! Mine aren't quite as identical.

As for the barrel band, I have a compact model that I tweaked. I have been craving a stock 10/22 for a while, and would definitely go bandless again. I like the idea of the houge, but I don't own any tupperware.

 

[Red Cent]

Now that barrel is floated. "custom stock" ,bedding pin through rear trigger group hole, take down screw pillar bedded, adjustable sear, OT screw, custom v-block, torsion bar trigger return, bolt release mod, additional tension screw under barrel 4" in front of V-block, E. R. Shaw bull barrel, head space set at .0425", firing pin "pinned" down.

2# (Lyman digital scale), no creep, barely discernible pre-travel . Federal CCI Mini Mags standard velocity and focus from me will get you 3/4" groups at 50 yards.

 

[BlkHawk73]

this asshole that thinks he needs to lecture me needs to step off -
I have nothing against Polymer construction, never did... I mean I did actually buy the all weather model for the stainless barrel, and the black PLASTIC stock.

Classy. Pot calling a kettle black? Shows one's integrity or lack thereof.

Ahhh, ain't worth the time. :wacko: