I have an opportunity to buy a 1973 ruger 10-22 pre-warning rifle. The cost is a little less then a new but not enough to be a factor. Does any one have an experience, good or bad, with the pre-warning rugers?
I've got one from 1968 that is a real keeper. The new ones these days use composites and plastics in many places, but not so from the time when yours was made. The quality of the wood on the walnut stock is also better than today's birch ones. It may be just my opinion, but the older ones with completely factory original parts shoot better than the new ones too.
__________________ Fear is a Reaction..............Courage is a Decision
I have one from 1971 that I purchased new when I was 16 for the huge sum of around $50. For me that was 3 months of bucking hay from out of the fields at $0.03 a bale. Of course purchasing a gun back then, didn't require paper work for the Guberment. I also long ago did a couple custom touches to mine, when NOBODY made any aftermarket accessories for the 10/22. I took off the barrel band and metal butt plate and polished them back somewhere in 1972. Also Tru-Oiled the walnut stock. Other than that and adding a scope and a sling to rifle, she's original and still shoots great. If you don't know what a older(before 1980) Ruger 10/22 shoots like, you need to experience the nostalgia and accuracy that Ruger once gave.
Plus those earlier rifle had anadized recievers not the painted junk of today. Now the plastic trigger houseing really ain't a big deal. they both have pro's and con's. Let that nice metal trigger guard hit somethin solid in a fall and it may break in several pieces . Not so with the palstic. Both work well with all the trigger upgrades. You can also use brake cleaner with out worry of the damd paint comeing off. But the new ones are easy to polish to a high shine. Clean that barrel real well and see how it shots. May be better than newest barrels.