View Full Version : AR style/type 22lr
A co-worker said her husband wants a AR style 22. Not sure which he is looking for but he is a non-military guy. $$ is not an issue, what would you guys recommend? Colt, SIG, Ruger, S&W...
I bought a Sig 522Classic for my seven year old daughter as she loves to shoot my AR platforms way too much for my pocket book. It's been a great paltform for her. I haven't had any feed, jam issues and she's probably put close to 10k rounds through it downrange.
Coincidentally, I'm probably gonna order one of these after the first of the year:
http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=66&productid=249
(I doubt it's as accurate as my Marlin Model 60, however. Seriously.)
http://www.hk22rimfire.com/
MK262MOD1
01-06-2011, 11:20
If money is not a concern I would get one of Frank White's uppers with a regular lower. Super Accurate and fun.
google "compass lake engineering"
MK262MOD1 sends
I have a Spike's Tactical and love it. Same weight, and feel as an M4. It is good for transitions drills and such as well as iron sight drilling inside of 25m.
D.
I have a Spike's Tactical and love it. Same weight, and feel as an M4. It is good for transitions drills and such as well as iron sight drilling inside of 25m.
D.
And so much cheaper. :cool:
And so much cheaper. :cool:
+1 on Spike's Tactical. I have a lower from them, love the quality so much I'm planning to buy a 22lr dedicated upper from them.
Great company.
I've had really good luck just dropping a CMMG .22 conversion bolt into my AR-15--two for the price of 1.
I've had really good luck just dropping a CMMG .22 conversion bolt into my AR-15--two for the price of 1.
Razor,
I've read good & bad reviews of the CMMG drop in kit. Any issues with jamming or failure to extract?
L
The Reaper
01-06-2011, 16:41
Razor,
I've read good & bad reviews of the CMMG drop in kit. Any issues with jamming or failure to extract?
L
I have one that will not run more than 50% of the rounds without a misfire or malfunction.
TR
I have one that will not run more than 50% of the rounds without a misfire or malfunction.
TR
Try taking some jewelers rouge and putting it on a .223 bore swab. Attach it to a drill and polish the 22 lr conversion's chamber up a bit. I know a gun dealer that recommends this for every 22 lr conversion kit right out of the box.
D.
I've been lucky with the conversion kit so far; of course, I've probably just jinxed myself in saying so. The first couple hundred rounds I shot were CCI Blazers, but after that I've run Remington bulk ammo, 40 year old Winchester and some American Eagle through it with only an occasional hiccup. I must have received a Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday production run. :)
My CMMG conversion doesn't like Remington golden bullets or Federal bulk pack. But I've never had any problems with CCI mini mags or Winchester SuperX jacketed.
craigepo
01-06-2011, 22:53
My gun shop dude tried to sell me a S&W yesterday. It looked and felt really "M-4y". Popped the bolt out; that part did not look M-4y. Dude said they were having good feedback on the guns, functioning well and shooting golfball-sized groups at 50 yards.
Of course, I don't think he has ever tried to sell me a bad gun.
I have the dedicated CMMG M-4 upper. It has the .22 bolt built in, as well has a .22 barrel. It is a pretty good tack driver for a M-4 profile barrel. It cost me around $400 at a gun show. It rarley, if ever fails me. The trick with the .22 stuff is loss of kinetic energy due to drag on moving parts. Most .22 is pretty inconsistant ammo. The best bet to have them run really smooth is to polish everything up really well. If you have a .22 chamber reamer that helps alot. You want some serious fun, go with the .22 beltfed!
Peregrino
01-07-2011, 08:45
I'm sold on the conversions; in fact, I'll be looking for another dedicated upper in a couple of weeks. Nothing else equals the "bang for the buck". I have a Model 1 upper and several CMMG conversions. They all have parkerized components. That means they require break-in and some patience while you experiment with various ammunition. After "several hundred" rounds it's just keeping it clean and lubricated. .22 is so dirty you have to be more scrupulious about maintenance, cleaning after every 400-500 rounds.
Papa Zero Three
01-11-2011, 21:56
My gun shop dude tried to sell me a S&W yesterday. It looked and felt really "M-4y". Popped the bolt out; that part did not look M-4y. Dude said they were having good feedback on the guns, functioning well and shooting golfball-sized groups at 50 yards.
Of course, I don't think he has ever tried to sell me a bad gun.
Handled the S&W and Colt versions today. The S&W was about $30 less than the Colt. The Colt collapsable butt stock had a lot of wiggle in it, otherwise it looked and felt solid. The S&W on the other hand had a magpul pistol grip and buttstock along with both front and rear folding sights. The folding sights are plastic/polymer and the only thing that I thought was questionable. Both guns had plenty of rail space with the Colt having removable rail guards on 3 sides, a removable rear sight and a fixed front. I'm undecided as to which one I want at this point, so if anyone has fired either one of these models your feedback is welcome.
I also handled a used GSG-5 and it just felt awkward but that may be attributed to the AR collapsable buttstock and aftermarket forward grip with integrated rails that was on it. The stock iron sights are pretty much useless but I am guessing most people would mount a sight of their choice on the top rail anyways.
With any conversion or look alike there will be sacrifices made. If it doesn't have to be an M4 looker, go with a Ruger 10/22. Bombproof. Plus lots of aftermaket parts for "tacticool".
Papa Zero Three
01-17-2011, 20:40
I picked up the S&W 15-22 MOE version today along with an extra magazine. I had the opportunity to handle the H&K umarex 416 D while I was making my purchase but I wasn't impressed with it enough to get it over the S&W ,even though it looked like a very good weapon aside from the bulky collapsible butt stock.