-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Ruger Precision Rimfire
- Thread starter t8500shx
- Start date
Do tell what is the part number? I've been looking for a bore guide for months.
Mine is 5/16-24, takes a 1/4" allen wrench to remove.
Last edited:
Is it the same as the stabdard Ruger Precision bolt knob? Could I get a matching aftermarket bolt knob as my full sized RPR in 6.5?
Yes. It's the same as the center fire RPR bolt knob. I've put an aftermarket on my RPRR.
It’s a $400 rifle. It’s an awesome $400 rifle. As a trainer I find it valuable. Some people act like they expect it to perform like a $4k rifle. Get over it, shoot it to have fun.
Yup.For me, it's way more fun than my Ruger American rim fire. . . especially since I dropped a Shaw barrel into it.
I have done quite a bit of testing with aluminum tape and aluminum sheet metal shimming the mags, magwell, and other parts and came to several conclusions. In short, all Ruger Precision rimfire polymer chassis have defective mag wells that are too long, specifically, they have too much clearance at the front of the magwell. I also think this is 90% of the problem with all Ruger Precision Rimfire accuracy and reliability issues and that Ruger must be aware of yhe issue but does not want to fix it. I will exlain in detail below.
I found that due to the way the rounds exit the 10-22 magazine, they are off center to the left and low and point up and right as they leave the mag. This requires very specific positioning fore/aft of the magazine relative to the chamber so the bullets hit the center of the chamber. Too close and the bullet tips get shaved going in at the lip of the chamber and rear face of the barrel or jam before they can enter the chamber. A little further back and the ogive gets scraped. A bit further back (fully to the rear of the magwell where function is still 100%) everything runs smooth. If it were even further to the rear, the bullet would hit wide and high and also cause problems. Ruger knows this because they have built a bazillion Ruger 10-22s that use the magzine design. For the Ruger Precision Rimfire, fully rearward where mag release function is still 100% is where the mags are intended to be placed and the factory rear of the magwell seems positioned correctly relative to the rear block, which makes sense since that block bolts to the reciever and hold the magazine release parts and the parts are made of metal which can be easilly machined to move things to correct positional issues during prototyping before manufacture.
I also found that the way the magazine locks up, it requires a very specific fore/aft mag well size. The front of the mag needs to fit in a plastic rounded notch at the front of the magwell which is part of the chasis and there needs to be adequate clearance for the rear mag release where the pin locks in to press the mag from the rear and get the front mag button to engage the front of the magwell. If the magwell is to small fore/aft the mag either wont lock in because the front button on the mag wont clear the front notch or it wont drop free easily and disengage the rear pin of the magazine. A ploymer part requires a mold change to fix tolerance issues and polymer parts are made in large batches to keep prices down. Once you make a batch of polymer chasis, you dont want to throw them away but you also have no machining to do that you can adjust to fix tolerances.
The magazines require a small enough magwell to hold the magazine body and not allow the mags to rock fore/aft, but a very tiny amount of rocking is required to get the magazines to lock in and drop free due to mag design. With too much fore/aft magwell size, the front metal button on the magazine can slip off the polymer ledge in the magwell and get stuck. Pointing the feedlups down. This causes either the bullets to jam in below the chamber which will stop your bolt travel cold, or scrapes the hell out of the bullet tips if it does manage to clear. Unfortunately, any rearward tug on the BX15 mags causes the mags to point down and the front button to slip off the ledge. It then can get stuck pointed down. On some mags and magwells, you may notice the mag freely rocks fore/aft but wont stick in either position. With other mags and magwells, you can make the magazine stick rocked forward or stick rocked rearward. In the BX15 this is obvious as you can grab the mag and rock it easily. Its a bit tougher to do with a BX1. The natural mag insertion technique of a BX15 will have you tend to insert and sort of rock back at the bottom like an AK mag. You must then be sure the mag is pushed forward at the bottom and feed lips point up to get correct positioning. The BX1 insertion tends to make you push up at the middle or front of the mag and puts the mag in the correct orientation. You can still reach up in there and pull the nose down by pulling back and down on the front edge of the magazine but it requires a deliberate attempt to do it.
The BX15 mags are also shorter than the BX1 mags. Both the length of protrusion of the metal rear pin and front button of mag as well as the thickness of the magazine polymer body are less for the BX15 than the BX1. The BX1 uses a screw to position the front button. I found it works best when the flange behind the button is flush with the mag body. This requires placing a very thin washer shim for that bolt to rest against to get the front button to protrude more. This shim requires an ID of .340" or more and OD of .435" or less thickness in the 30 to 60 thou range to get that flange flush on a current production BX1 mag. This helps keep the front button engaged on the lip of the rounded notch at the front of the magwell. Unfortunately, BX15 mags have the feed lips, front button, and rear pin as one solid metal unit that cannot be adjusted. It is also the mag that comes with the gun so the magwell should be most reliable with a BX15, but of course it is not.
My first experiment was to shim the rear of the magwell to push the mags forward so they would not rock and would catch the front notch of the magwell, since you cant add material to the front of the whole mag body without covering the front button, you cant build up the front of the magwell notch, and you cant extend the front button to catch the lip on the BX15. Pushing the mag forward resulted in 100% lock up, propper feed lip orientation and no mag rocking, and inserting mags was easy and they dropped free when relesased. Unfortunately, the magazine was too close to the chamber. It jammed and either would not function at all or mangled the bullets horribly as they were chambered.
Next, I shimmed the front of the magwell to push the magazine to the rear. This exacerbated the front magazine button falling off the ledge at the front of the magwell, but the positioning was ideal for feeding if the magzine was held to keep the feed lips pointed up. No damage what so ever. Feeding was ultra smooth.
I also did various combinations of shimming mags at the front or back to take up space. I have come across one shimming technique on the BX15 that works OK to put the magazine in a position that stops rocking, causes minimal bullet damage, holds at the front lip of the magwell, and allows easy insertion and drop free of the magazine. It involves building up a bar of material above and flush with the front button at the front of the magazine and another bar down from the rear horizontal speed bump ledge that protrudes at the rear of the BX15. I will test it more and try making a JB weld version if the aluminum tape version pans out. I still get some bullet damage but it is minimal. If I move the mag more rearward, it slips off the magwell button ledge.
All of these issues would go away if the front wall of the magazine well was just moved about 1mm or so further to the rear. I think this is the biggest reason that people get flyers, have reliability issues, etc. Its not that the chassis has flex... it is that EVERY SINGLE RPR rimfire has a magwell that is out of spec with the front wall positioned too far forward! I also think Ruger is well aware of this.
If you pull off your reciever and look at the magwell from the top, you will see the front wall intersects a circular hole that appears to not be for anything other than a witness mark to see where the magwell is located relative to that hole. The front magwall intersects toward its front edge. The front mag wall should be pushed back to where it is flush with the middle of that round hole or possibly even slightly further.
I think Ruger should do a nationwide recall and give propper spec chassis to every RPR rimfire owner. Just a bare chasis where we can swap the buttstock, action, grip, etc. Should be sent to everyone who provides a serial number. I think it is bullshit Ruger has foisted an obviously out of spec part on the American public and expects us to send in the whole rifle and hope for the best, while the 100% biggest problem with all the rifles is CLEARLY a defective polymer part spec that they dont want to spend the money to fix because it requires a complete replacement of the chasis.
Will edit and continue later....
I found that due to the way the rounds exit the 10-22 magazine, they are off center to the left and low and point up and right as they leave the mag. This requires very specific positioning fore/aft of the magazine relative to the chamber so the bullets hit the center of the chamber. Too close and the bullet tips get shaved going in at the lip of the chamber and rear face of the barrel or jam before they can enter the chamber. A little further back and the ogive gets scraped. A bit further back (fully to the rear of the magwell where function is still 100%) everything runs smooth. If it were even further to the rear, the bullet would hit wide and high and also cause problems. Ruger knows this because they have built a bazillion Ruger 10-22s that use the magzine design. For the Ruger Precision Rimfire, fully rearward where mag release function is still 100% is where the mags are intended to be placed and the factory rear of the magwell seems positioned correctly relative to the rear block, which makes sense since that block bolts to the reciever and hold the magazine release parts and the parts are made of metal which can be easilly machined to move things to correct positional issues during prototyping before manufacture.
I also found that the way the magazine locks up, it requires a very specific fore/aft mag well size. The front of the mag needs to fit in a plastic rounded notch at the front of the magwell which is part of the chasis and there needs to be adequate clearance for the rear mag release where the pin locks in to press the mag from the rear and get the front mag button to engage the front of the magwell. If the magwell is to small fore/aft the mag either wont lock in because the front button on the mag wont clear the front notch or it wont drop free easily and disengage the rear pin of the magazine. A ploymer part requires a mold change to fix tolerance issues and polymer parts are made in large batches to keep prices down. Once you make a batch of polymer chasis, you dont want to throw them away but you also have no machining to do that you can adjust to fix tolerances.
The magazines require a small enough magwell to hold the magazine body and not allow the mags to rock fore/aft, but a very tiny amount of rocking is required to get the magazines to lock in and drop free due to mag design. With too much fore/aft magwell size, the front metal button on the magazine can slip off the polymer ledge in the magwell and get stuck. Pointing the feedlups down. This causes either the bullets to jam in below the chamber which will stop your bolt travel cold, or scrapes the hell out of the bullet tips if it does manage to clear. Unfortunately, any rearward tug on the BX15 mags causes the mags to point down and the front button to slip off the ledge. It then can get stuck pointed down. On some mags and magwells, you may notice the mag freely rocks fore/aft but wont stick in either position. With other mags and magwells, you can make the magazine stick rocked forward or stick rocked rearward. In the BX15 this is obvious as you can grab the mag and rock it easily. Its a bit tougher to do with a BX1. The natural mag insertion technique of a BX15 will have you tend to insert and sort of rock back at the bottom like an AK mag. You must then be sure the mag is pushed forward at the bottom and feed lips point up to get correct positioning. The BX1 insertion tends to make you push up at the middle or front of the mag and puts the mag in the correct orientation. You can still reach up in there and pull the nose down by pulling back and down on the front edge of the magazine but it requires a deliberate attempt to do it.
The BX15 mags are also shorter than the BX1 mags. Both the length of protrusion of the metal rear pin and front button of mag as well as the thickness of the magazine polymer body are less for the BX15 than the BX1. The BX1 uses a screw to position the front button. I found it works best when the flange behind the button is flush with the mag body. This requires placing a very thin washer shim for that bolt to rest against to get the front button to protrude more. This shim requires an ID of .340" or more and OD of .435" or less thickness in the 30 to 60 thou range to get that flange flush on a current production BX1 mag. This helps keep the front button engaged on the lip of the rounded notch at the front of the magwell. Unfortunately, BX15 mags have the feed lips, front button, and rear pin as one solid metal unit that cannot be adjusted. It is also the mag that comes with the gun so the magwell should be most reliable with a BX15, but of course it is not.
My first experiment was to shim the rear of the magwell to push the mags forward so they would not rock and would catch the front notch of the magwell, since you cant add material to the front of the whole mag body without covering the front button, you cant build up the front of the magwell notch, and you cant extend the front button to catch the lip on the BX15. Pushing the mag forward resulted in 100% lock up, propper feed lip orientation and no mag rocking, and inserting mags was easy and they dropped free when relesased. Unfortunately, the magazine was too close to the chamber. It jammed and either would not function at all or mangled the bullets horribly as they were chambered.
Next, I shimmed the front of the magwell to push the magazine to the rear. This exacerbated the front magazine button falling off the ledge at the front of the magwell, but the positioning was ideal for feeding if the magzine was held to keep the feed lips pointed up. No damage what so ever. Feeding was ultra smooth.
I also did various combinations of shimming mags at the front or back to take up space. I have come across one shimming technique on the BX15 that works OK to put the magazine in a position that stops rocking, causes minimal bullet damage, holds at the front lip of the magwell, and allows easy insertion and drop free of the magazine. It involves building up a bar of material above and flush with the front button at the front of the magazine and another bar down from the rear horizontal speed bump ledge that protrudes at the rear of the BX15. I will test it more and try making a JB weld version if the aluminum tape version pans out. I still get some bullet damage but it is minimal. If I move the mag more rearward, it slips off the magwell button ledge.
All of these issues would go away if the front wall of the magazine well was just moved about 1mm or so further to the rear. I think this is the biggest reason that people get flyers, have reliability issues, etc. Its not that the chassis has flex... it is that EVERY SINGLE RPR rimfire has a magwell that is out of spec with the front wall positioned too far forward! I also think Ruger is well aware of this.
If you pull off your reciever and look at the magwell from the top, you will see the front wall intersects a circular hole that appears to not be for anything other than a witness mark to see where the magwell is located relative to that hole. The front magwall intersects toward its front edge. The front mag wall should be pushed back to where it is flush with the middle of that round hole or possibly even slightly further.
I think Ruger should do a nationwide recall and give propper spec chassis to every RPR rimfire owner. Just a bare chasis where we can swap the buttstock, action, grip, etc. Should be sent to everyone who provides a serial number. I think it is bullshit Ruger has foisted an obviously out of spec part on the American public and expects us to send in the whole rifle and hope for the best, while the 100% biggest problem with all the rifles is CLEARLY a defective polymer part spec that they dont want to spend the money to fix because it requires a complete replacement of the chasis.
Will edit and continue later....
After filing down the sharp edges on the bolt and shimming all around the mag assembly to tighten it up, my RPR rimfire has been shooting great . . . and I mean "great" in terms of it's price point. I never did expect it to shoot like some $4K gun . . . especially since it only has a "target" barrel and not a match barrel. Having dropped a Shaw barrel (costing me $250) into it now, it shoots even better and still all together a great value (IMHO).
It's still a very new production gun and will probably take Ruger a while to work out some of the issues like so many companies do with their products these days tending to be rushed out to the consumers that the consumer becomes the beta tester for them.
It's still a very new production gun and will probably take Ruger a while to work out some of the issues like so many companies do with their products these days tending to be rushed out to the consumers that the consumer becomes the beta tester for them.
But we should not be having to shim magazines due to an obviously out of spec magwell as beta testers. Im not an engineer and I figured out the issue and what was wrong with nothing but calipers, shim stock, aluminum tape, and a few hours of my time. If I had a 40 hour week and a couple dozen chassis, I could tell Ruger how many thousandths exactly to move the magwell back and 90% of their customer service issues would disapper. This should have been figured out BEFORE they were released because it is glaringly obvious. We ALL have the same mag issues. If you single load bullets into the chamber the gun is amazingly accurate.
Even for a $400 gun this is simple to work out before release since every gun has the same issues. Try pulling back on the provided magazine in ANY Ruger Precision Rimfire and you will have massive and obvious feed issues and they ALL can be rocked fore/aft in the magwell... every single one on dealer shelves I have tried.
I found other possible partial fixes like a stronger spring in the mag release assembly would help on the rocking issue but the magwell spec makes those unnecessary.
Last edited:
They could, but it would make the gun more expensive. I doubt Ruger woukd entertain the idea.
Im sure one day someone will make an aftermarket aluminum chassis that takes an AR15 stock and has perfect specs, but if they just made the current lower IN SPEC you would have a perfectly reliable and accurate gun that could shoot 3/4 MOA out of the box.
You gain little with a metal mag well, metal front pillar, etc. in a .22lr. Companies that go to that trouble and cost would do other things like have some sort of true bolt lock up with lugs instead of indexing off the bolt handle only on one side, etc.
I agree DevL, Ruger could have and should have done better with their quality control before releasing this gun. There's just no good excuse for it.
I don't even use the mag that came with it as I used the 10 round rotary mags that I use with my other Rugers. After shimming the mag assembly, these mags have done really well with no feeding issues (like, no damage to the bullet upon feeding). The mag that came with this gun just doesn't fit as well as the rotary ones I have. Though I haven't measured them, the one that came with the gun seems a fraction small . . . and why the mag assembly may need a stronger string to hold it in place as you say. For now, I'm happy to stick with the rotary mags.
I don't even use the mag that came with it as I used the 10 round rotary mags that I use with my other Rugers. After shimming the mag assembly, these mags have done really well with no feeding issues (like, no damage to the bullet upon feeding). The mag that came with this gun just doesn't fit as well as the rotary ones I have. Though I haven't measured them, the one that came with the gun seems a fraction small . . . and why the mag assembly may need a stronger string to hold it in place as you say. For now, I'm happy to stick with the rotary mags.
After sending my rifle back to Ruger twice (that means a total of three barrels, one of which was bored off center). I still aid accuracy problems with their barrels. I have used tape to "tighten" the action to the stock and also tape to attempt to have the ejector/mag release mechanism fit better, and changing to a 10 round mag,, and installing a Green Mountain aftermarket barrel, I'm still searching for consistent accuracy and POI's.
Ruger's response to the magazine fitment problem was to send another BX-125 mad that fit just as poorly as the one supplied with the rifle.
Ruger's response to the accuracy problem was to have the gun returned to them (and I must say the customer service reps are very patient and courteous) was to install another poorly made barrel.
I fully and totally recommend no one buy any Ruger product that says, "Precision".
Ruger's response to the magazine fitment problem was to send another BX-125 mad that fit just as poorly as the one supplied with the rifle.
Ruger's response to the accuracy problem was to have the gun returned to them (and I must say the customer service reps are very patient and courteous) was to install another poorly made barrel.
I fully and totally recommend no one buy any Ruger product that says, "Precision".
So if the mag fitment is the source of the accuracy issues we should be able to shoot some groups handloading each round and prove this out? Has anyone done this?
It is like I have said before RPR is chasing your tail. By the time you fix all the fuckups you could get a real accurate 22. Like A 455 OR A 40X . For what some of you are spending to make a bad idea shoot. By bad idea I mean a RPR. I have been there done that. Never again
So I tried out some shimmed mags and shot 5 shots CAREFULLY loading so as to not damage Wolf Match Extra and then SK Rifle match and put 5 shots into .38" at 50 with Wokf. Then I intentionally forced a round into chamber as it hung up, which opened group to .58" for a 6th round and was only group not in one hole. Another done the same way took a .47" group and the forced round opened it to .76" group. Other groups I shot prior, trying to shoot small, unforced groups had distinct vertical stringing till my freshly cleaned barrel settled down. I tried the forced rounds after I was sure the bore was settled. Groups were .50", .63", .41" .53" at 50 dyring break in. I then tried the shimmed mags and tested by quickly racking each round with "minor" damage at 100 and got groups from 1.2" to 2.1" with most hovering in the 1.3" to 1.5" range. I pulled some bullets that I found hard to seat that I did not seat fully after the hang up and found that neck tension was so poor I could spin the bullets in the brass with my fingers.
My most shimmed mag had no ability to catch the front recess of the mag well and STILL had a few minor hang ups chambering that hurt accuracy.
Im sending her back to Ruger to see what happens. I'm also giving in and buying a V22 action.
Smatr move on the v22 I love mine. The Ruger RPR is a fuckup concept. If you want a rifle that sux and to build on get a RPR
Face it if you buy a Ruger your buying a gun you have to up grade to get it to shoot. Other wise we would not have Tactical Soultins or Kidd rifles. Rugers are built to fail to support the after market
another way to know the RPR sux is . You don't see them on here for sale. The owners know they are fuck and cant sell them
@nesikabay, please show us on the doll where the RRPR touched you. I don't own one. I picked one up, ran the bolt a few times, and decided against it. I don have a dog in this fight. But, you seem to have been personally maligned. Don't worry, this is a safe space...
Hmmm??? How long has the 10/22 been around compared to how long for the RPR rimfire?
Seems like some people's expectations are kinda skewed???
Seems like some people's expectations are kinda skewed???
When you start off thinking that you are getting a V22 for less than 1/8 the price you are setting your self for disappointment. I have a 10/22, an Ruger American Rimfire and the Ruger Precision Rimfire. The 10/22 lives in a Nordic chassis; The RAR in an MDT LSS-22 chassis both shoot very well. The 10/22 sports a GM aftermarket barrel as does the RPRi. At the moment I'm enjoying my time behind the trigger with all three of them.
I pretty much knew going in that the RPRim would have issues. The rifle's operational parameters were to hit a 3" to 6" steal circle at 300 yards with some consistency; not punching small holes in paper at 50 yards. I'm not at all in love with the glass filled nylon chassis; if they had provided a proper aluminum chassis like the RPR I think that there would be a lot less hating for this rifle. But then again it would have cost hundreds of dollars more.
Maybe I have lower expectations or maybe CZ and Tikka just deliver more for the same price but I still think the RPR is pretty good for what it is.
Is it a V22, or and Annie (lithgow, Sako, CZ, or Tikka)? Hell no. Will it hang in accuracy with a savage or marlin? Maybe.
But what it offers as a package is acceptable accuracy, adjustability, ergonomics, reliable mags, decent trigger, free floated, scope rail included, enlarged bolt knob etc... and all this for a decent price.
I am spending more on a barrel for my boys rifle but it’s not because of the accuracy, it’s because of the weight.
If I can get it before the end of the year I will post some results.
But in the end it’s a 400 dollar rifle
Is it a V22, or and Annie (lithgow, Sako, CZ, or Tikka)? Hell no. Will it hang in accuracy with a savage or marlin? Maybe.
But what it offers as a package is acceptable accuracy, adjustability, ergonomics, reliable mags, decent trigger, free floated, scope rail included, enlarged bolt knob etc... and all this for a decent price.
I am spending more on a barrel for my boys rifle but it’s not because of the accuracy, it’s because of the weight.
If I can get it before the end of the year I will post some results.
But in the end it’s a 400 dollar rifle
Long time lurker, first time poster on this thread.
I have an RPRR that also suffers from magazine induced bullet mutilation (mostly shaved lead). I've tried many different magazines, cycling through the shells to examine the effect on the bullets. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to the issue. I've done some tape bedding, etc. I also use a 3D printed single shot sled and thst seems to help a little with consistency and accuracy. I think it desperately needs an aluminum chassis. (MDT, are you listening??) I've put the gun on the back burner for now while I play with my new Tikka T1x and wait for an aluminum chassis to drop that addresses the issues.
I did stumble upon something that may be a fix, though. As most of you know, the high capacity 10/22 mags are illegal up in Canada because they can be used on the Charger pistol. So Canadians are working on magwell adapters to use other branded mags. Most of them are 3D printed, which would allow for spec changes to account for the out of spec polymer stock we're dealing with on the RPRR. Here's one example (I saw another but can't find it at the moment)...I may order one on backorder just to see how they run.
https://spectreballistics.com/1022/51-ruger-1022-magazine-adapter.html
Anyway, just an idea... Thought I would throw it out here and then go back to lurk mode.
I have an RPRR that also suffers from magazine induced bullet mutilation (mostly shaved lead). I've tried many different magazines, cycling through the shells to examine the effect on the bullets. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to the issue. I've done some tape bedding, etc. I also use a 3D printed single shot sled and thst seems to help a little with consistency and accuracy. I think it desperately needs an aluminum chassis. (MDT, are you listening??) I've put the gun on the back burner for now while I play with my new Tikka T1x and wait for an aluminum chassis to drop that addresses the issues.
I did stumble upon something that may be a fix, though. As most of you know, the high capacity 10/22 mags are illegal up in Canada because they can be used on the Charger pistol. So Canadians are working on magwell adapters to use other branded mags. Most of them are 3D printed, which would allow for spec changes to account for the out of spec polymer stock we're dealing with on the RPRR. Here's one example (I saw another but can't find it at the moment)...I may order one on backorder just to see how they run.
https://spectreballistics.com/1022/51-ruger-1022-magazine-adapter.html
Anyway, just an idea... Thought I would throw it out here and then go back to lurk mode.
Hopefully someone like MDT will step in and correct the issue and give us some additional options at the same time. Then maybe Brownell's could offer us a barrelled action and we could assemble it correctly from the start. Ruger got very close with this offering but slightly missed the mark although mine shoots very well after making all of the adjustments mentioned on this forum, (use BX-1 with spring adjustment, removed trigger spring, foil taped action, confirmed torque specs on every fastener, keep the barrel clean etc.) On my particular RPRR using the BX-1 with spring adjustment is what eliminated the occasional flyer when using CCI SV's. I was considering going to the Shaw but if I can continue putting 5 shots inside a nickel at 50 yards consistently with most of them touching using cheap ammo, i'm good for now. Thank you for this detailed and informative analysis.
So I've read through this entire thread and not yet come across the issue I am having with my RPRR. I have a safety lever that has a LOT of drag; when you switch it to "fire / safe" it takes more pressure than you can apply with just your thumb. It wasn't like this when I bought the rifle new as I checked them out and got the "best" one. When I got it home I took it apart like all the rest of you OCD guys, cleaned, lubed and reassembled; torqued the action screws to 31 inlbs. That's when I noticed that the safety was not snappy and easy to operate like before.
I searched the internet and found nothing on this issue. Drat, now I have to try to figure things out on my own....
So I began checking and looking and marking things and checking and measuring and could not figure out why all was good when the action screws were loose, but as soon as I snug them up, or torqued them down the safety would be practically stuck. Everything seemed normal until I tightened the action screws.
I finally think I figured out the issue; when the action screws tighten it pulls the action into the chassis. This causes the bottom of the trigger in which the notch that slips over the safety selector barrel come into contact there was not enough clearance, this was forcing the safety selector switch downward and causing it to bind in the hole in the chassis. The fit was great until tightening the action. I took a smooth round file and began to clearance the safety hole in the chassis on the bottom edge slightly; this made the safety switch have a sloppier static fit. Upon reassembling and torquing the safety switch now is a bit easier to turn and operate. I am hesitant to take off too much material at this point on the chassis, but I think if I oblonged the hole more the safety would become nicer.
I am going to try another fix option and see how that works to fix this issue. I estimate that if I build up the chassis to action interface little bit it will also fix this issue. I am planning to add a few layers . of foil tape bedding and see if this helps.
Has anyone else had this issue? If so, what did you do to fix it?
Thanks.
EDIT: So I clearanced the bottom of the safety switch hole in the chassis a tiny bit more and got the safety selector to turn satisfactorily now. I feel this is simply an issue of tolerance stacking and that the rifle was probably did not have the action screws torqued properly when I bought it.
I searched the internet and found nothing on this issue. Drat, now I have to try to figure things out on my own....
So I began checking and looking and marking things and checking and measuring and could not figure out why all was good when the action screws were loose, but as soon as I snug them up, or torqued them down the safety would be practically stuck. Everything seemed normal until I tightened the action screws.
I finally think I figured out the issue; when the action screws tighten it pulls the action into the chassis. This causes the bottom of the trigger in which the notch that slips over the safety selector barrel come into contact there was not enough clearance, this was forcing the safety selector switch downward and causing it to bind in the hole in the chassis. The fit was great until tightening the action. I took a smooth round file and began to clearance the safety hole in the chassis on the bottom edge slightly; this made the safety switch have a sloppier static fit. Upon reassembling and torquing the safety switch now is a bit easier to turn and operate. I am hesitant to take off too much material at this point on the chassis, but I think if I oblonged the hole more the safety would become nicer.
I am going to try another fix option and see how that works to fix this issue. I estimate that if I build up the chassis to action interface little bit it will also fix this issue. I am planning to add a few layers . of foil tape bedding and see if this helps.
Has anyone else had this issue? If so, what did you do to fix it?
Thanks.
EDIT: So I clearanced the bottom of the safety switch hole in the chassis a tiny bit more and got the safety selector to turn satisfactorily now. I feel this is simply an issue of tolerance stacking and that the rifle was probably did not have the action screws torqued properly when I bought it.
Last edited:
I’ve had some time over the last few days to tinker around with this rifle. I’ve been happy with the gun so far but there’s always room for improvement. I bedded the front block with aluminum tape and started taking a closer look at what the rounds look like after being chambered. There is a distinct line on each chambered round. This mark is coming from the bottom of the bolt. I polished the bottom of the bolt and this decreased the mark left by the bolt. The first image is the mark left before I polished the bolt and the second is after polishing. You can see in the third image where the bolt is scrapping the bullet. Is there a way to eliminate this contact? Is this caused by the way the mag fits in the receiver?
Attachments
15 or 10 round magazine? I personally don't use 15 rounders; the range I shoot at has a 6 round max so I use my 10/22's 10 round magazine. I havent looked at the bullet after chamberin to see if there are any marks on it. I'll have to check on that and report back.
The 15 rounders. I’d be interested to see if the 10 round mags have the same results. Maybe the the 15 round mags are putting too much upward pressure on the rounds forcing them into the bottom of the bolt. I’ll try to take some tension out of the mag spring to see if that changes anything.
Just read through a bunch of this thread. My first post on the site but I felt like the RPR rim was getting unfair treatment.
It’s a $400 gun.
I have run just over 4500 rounds through the one I bought in March. Mostly steel from 100-325yds.
Paper it shoots just under .75” with Eley Orange box at 100. And right around 1-1.1” with CCI SV. I haven’t done a single modification except taping for the mag issue.
For $400 this works as a trainer better than any other that I have tried in the price range.
It doesn’t make sense to me sinking a bunch of money into modding it...I would rather spend on ammo.
It’s a $400 gun.
I have run just over 4500 rounds through the one I bought in March. Mostly steel from 100-325yds.
Paper it shoots just under .75” with Eley Orange box at 100. And right around 1-1.1” with CCI SV. I haven’t done a single modification except taping for the mag issue.
For $400 this works as a trainer better than any other that I have tried in the price range.
It doesn’t make sense to me sinking a bunch of money into modding it...I would rather spend on ammo.
Tried my 10 round magazines earlier today loaded 5 rounds; chambered and ejected all 5 rounds. Did not see any damage to the bearing rings on any of the rounds. I should mention that I unwound the magazine spring a little to take the pressure off the rounds while loading. When using the 10 round magizine the spring tension is calibrated for the simi automatic 10/22 which means that the next round in the magizine must be ready to chamber then the bolt recoils back. I believe that that tension is not needed for our bolt action rifles.
I bought one because it looked fun. Turns out it is fun. Who the hell cares whether it is better than a Vudoo or a CZ or a Tikka?! I have a CZ and that is fun also. This is a hobby the purposes of which are to try stuff, have fun, and spend money so your kids don't get it all when you die. I mean, sheesh.
Got a chance to shoot the rifle yesterday after the adding the foil tape to the v block. I also was able to borrow a 10 rd mag from a friend so I wanted to see if there was a difference in group size between the 10 and 15 rounders. The wind wasn’t the best for trying out a new setup. Had about a 5mph wind with gusts over 10. My first shot was almost 2 mils high and it took me several rounds to re-zero and get comfortable behind the rifle. The middle row of targets were shot with the 10 round mag and the bottom with the 15 round. There are also 2 10 shot groups with each mag at the top right. These were the last groups of the day. I think these 2 groups tell the truth. There’s no difference between the 2 mags at 50 yards. I am not the best group shooter and the trigger needed to be adjusted a little more which I did when I got home. Next time the groups should get a little better. Overall I am very happy with the way this thing shoots for $400. Is it a sub half inch gun? No but it is still a ton of fun to shoot and we’ll worth the $.
