[Terry G]

It seems like their the rage now and if you like them, great. But this idea is hardly new. I remember owning an Erma .22 rifle that from first glance was a spitting image of an M-1 Carbine. This was in 1970. It had a 10 shot magazine that looked like a 15 shot carbine magazine. The sights were the same kind and I remember the rear sight aperature was too large for good target shooting. I soon tired of it and bought a real .30 Carbine. The same was true with the M-16 .22 look-a-likes. Let's face it, a .22 is a .22, no matter how you wrap it. The Ruger 10/22 will do most anything you ask of it for a reasonable price, and I can't see a $600.00 price tag on a replica. Now .22 handguns are a different story...........

 

[raul]

I totally agree with you Terry, below some of my .22 handguns...

 

[candr44]

I would have to agree also. I have several .22 rifles and most are old Marlins and Mossbergs from the 1940s and 50s. The older guns seem to be better built than what you get now days and that's why they are still around today. Even the old Weaver scopes for these rifles seem to hold up well over time.

The one exception to a military style .22 that I would own is an AR15 lower reciever with a .22 upper. These rifles are real AR15 rifles and can be converted to .223 (or a lot of other calibers) by replacing the upper. The construction quality is also much better than a replica gun but the cost is on the high side for a .22 rifle when compared to old Marlins and Mossbergs. It won't shoot any better either.