Why have Ruger not introduced a tactical 10/22 rifle?
Ruger finally went tactical for the first time in decades with the launch of the Mini-14 Tactical. So why did the 10/22, probably their biggest selling firearm and quite possibly the worlds biggest selling rimfire rifle, not get the tactical treatment? It makes no sense.
Tactical Ruger 10/22 chambered in .17 Mach2 for sale at GunBroker for $1,255
Sound off in the comments with your opinion …
Ruger – if you are reading this … pay me lots of money as a consultant and I will make you even more money 
Perhaps they don’t need to. At the moment there are so many tactical accessories for the 10/22 that make it very customizable to personal taste and maybe they just don’t want to compete with that. I bought a pile of acessories for mine before I even had the 10/22 home from the store. Mine actually looks very similar to the one in the picture. (same receiver cover, handguard and buttstock)
Perhaps the product development staff at Ruger is busy with other things.
Because it is a 22. Not to say it would kill something or someone, but there are a whole lot of better options out to worry about making a tactical 22. JMOP
I wouldn’t buy a tactical ruger 10/22 just because jazzing it up myself is half the fun. That said they would have a hard time competing against the millions of other companies.
That thing looks ridiculous.
My love with my .22 rifle (a Marlin, considered trading it for a 10/22 many times) is that it is a simple rifle that taught me how to shoot without any extra tools, batteries, asisstive-devices, or other shenanigains.
The other thing against a tactical .22 anything is that its .22. While still a weapon and still lethal, .22 is not a good choice for any sort of tactical application. Why build a rifle with all the tactical addons when the rifle itself isn’t suited for tactical applications??
I see the need for a training weapon, but the aftermarket has addressed that. Furthermore, if you’re using a 10/22 to train for tactical applications with a bigger rifle, all you need on the 10/22 is a set of rails. Swap your accessories on, go train, then swap the accessories back to the other rifle.
The other issue is marketing. With the wide range of aftermarket options, Ruger will have to try and build a tacti-cool rifle to reach a wide audience. That audience will have their own preferences for one brand of red-dot over another, buy the rifle, and swap out some parts anyway. Worse, not buy the tacticool 10/22 because they can do the math and buy a base 10/22 and build one out for less with the exact parts/brands they want.
Actually, those of you saying a .22 is a poor choice should look at what the Israeli Army is doing-
they’re using 10/22 rifles, tactical-ized, as a sort of low-range sniping platform. Originally they used it to kneecap group leaders of Hammas formations when engaging in operations against same. Then they found it worked so well that they just started taking headshots and taking out the leaders that way. Close enough to discriminate, without overpenetration concerns.
jafo, the Russians special forces also use a .22. I think they use a suppressed bolt action rifle made by Toz.
jafo,
Neat! Thanks for cluing me in to this, more info here:
http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm
A quick google for ‘israeli .22 sniper’ turns up a lot of links. While I’ve always treated all my guns as lethal, I have a bit more respect for the .22 now.
It is a complete custom built without one single Ruger part by the looks of it.
A few years back I was thinking about building one like it for CQC training (without the VG and scope) but decided it was cheaper to just convert one of my AR to shot .22lr.
I was suppose to build another custom 10/22 this year but last month I committed myself by ordering parts to complete two new AR15.
The reason why Ruger does not introduce a tactical 10/22 is the same reason why they won’t produce AR15: tactical rifles are mean looking. They are sacrificing large market share because they are too political correct.
It took Ruger forever to get a handgun that was concealable into the market.
I think that Ruger has not gone tactical because they have had a lot of press problems with the mini-14 being used in various shooting in the US. Keeping the 10/22 non-tactical means that they appear to be concious of their image and they don’t want to be held responsible for any new events that may go on the news. There was a huge problem with the mini-14 (which already is designed around the m14 action) and many people wanted to ban the mini-14. But with the 10/22, when you alter it yourself, they can stand back and say it was not designed as such.
Ruger wanted to ban the AR and all assault rifles. Ruger supported the
AWB because the mini-14 market share was being killed by AR15.
The two products that Ruger resisted the most was concealable handguns
and AR15/Assault weapons. Both help mom and pop operations grow in the 90s. Magpul six years ago was a small operation now their profits probably rival Ruger.
Here the thing that really bugs me. You got people that think changing
the stock make the rifle deadlier. It doesn’t. A .22lr that goes out
of a standard Ruger stock is as deadly as a .22lr that goes out of a
pistol type stock.
The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=185&Itemid=39
What’s the fascination and appeal of “tactical”?
There are several advantages to building your own tacticool rifle.
First, there is the level of customization. You can choose the exact stock, sight, foregrip, etc that you want.
Second is cost. Purchasing a base model allows the owner to customize it over time. I bought my 10/22 in my third year of undergrad college. When I bought it, I could only afford the rifle and a scope but no rings! $280 was a big expenditure at the time. It was several months before I could spare the money for a Volquartsen hammer and botl release. I finally got the stock I wanted 15 months after I bought the rifle.