[BigByrd47119]

I dont want to Hijack my own thread, but I just yesterday found a Mossberg 702 (.22lr) which is priced in between the two. It solves the tube fed issue as its a Magazine design, but has a very similar style to the Ruger. In all honesty, I just want a .22 to take to the range and have fun with. Id rather spend the money I would spend on accessories to get a new Shotgun. Has anyone had any experiance with the Mossberg 702?

[RL357Mag]

Originally Posted by BigByrd47119

I dont want to Hijack my own thread, but I just yesterday found a Mossberg 702 (.22lr) which is priced in between the two. It solves the tube fed issue as its a Magazine design, but has a very similar style to the Ruger. In all honesty, I just want a .22 to take to the range and have fun with. Id rather spend the money I would spend on accessories to get a new Shotgun. Has anyone had any experiance with the Mossberg 702?

I believe it's made in China. I would get the Marlin. There is no issue with tube magazines - anyone who claims there is doesn't know what they are talking about! A tube feed mechanism is the least likely to fail due to the fact that it is the simplest feed system available. A box magazine relies on several factors to work perfectly including angular alignment of the shell with the feed ramp, correct forming of the feed lips on the magazine, and correct spring tension of the magazine spring. Most box magazine .22's will jam if pressure is applied to the bottom of the magazine, as in resting the rifle on the magazine or placing your palm under the magazine. The Ruger rotary magazine is a mechanical wonder that doesn't always perform flawlessly. The more mechanically complex something is, the greater the likelihood of it failing. As I said earlier, the Ruger has killer looks compared to the Marlin, and has more upgrades and accessories than an AR-15, but the Model 60 is still the worlds best selling .22, so they must have done something right!

[robocop10mm]

I have a Model 60 that I bought new in about 1977. It still works fine (after 100,000 + rds) but the aluminum receiver to barrel fit is all jacked up. There is no way to fix this. I believe it is simply press fit and is way LOOSE.

I have a 10-22 that gives yeoman service, can be accessorized and barrels can be easily changed out.

Question that just popped into my head - Can a 17 Mach II barrel be installed on a standard 10-22? Will mags work? Does the bolt have to be swapped out to a lighter mass unit?

[stalkingbear]

You need a stronger spring and HEAVIER bolt to convert to the .17HM2. The mags will work but be sure to "upgrade" to the heavier bolt & spring along with the barrel. They offer conversion kits that contain all the above parts.

Originally Posted by robocop10mm

I have a Model 60 that I bought new in about 1977. It still works fine (after 100,000 + rds) but the aluminum receiver to barrel fit is all jacked up. There is no way to fix this. I believe it is simply press fit and is way LOOSE.

I have a 10-22 that gives yeoman service, can be accessorized and barrels can be easily changed out.

Question that just popped into my head - Can a 17 Mach II barrel be installed on a standard 10-22? Will mags work? Does the bolt have to be swapped out to a lighter mass unit?

[robocop10mm]

Hmmm. That's the opposite of what I would expect from a blowback operated gun. I figured the lighter bullet and bottleneck case would reduce bolt thrust and necessitate a lighter bolt. Nice to know.

[stalkingbear]

The reason for the heavier bolt/spring is due to the higher pressures generated by the .17HM2. The heavier bolt will resist moving for a split second longer as you know.