10/22 Liberty Training Rifles -- Good for Appleseed AND for your budget!

[Junior Birdman]

  Dangit!

[gjwilliamsjr]

Very interseting..... Looks like I got the new trigger group housing but the old style hammer. Thanks for the update!  JB

no problem--I guess I was just "lucky" getting the "new" hammer....RATS!!

[Junior Birdman]

  What can you tell us about the hammer? In other words, does it appear to need to be replaced? Or are you looking to lighten the trigger pull by using an atermarket hammer?  Is it fairly tight in the housing? (Little side to side movement) I assume the hammer/ sear surface could still be polished to lighten the trigger.

   I would guess the new hammer is a means of reducing production costs. One part instead of three.

[gunville]

Has anyone tried a DPMS A3 rear sight on a 10/22 using a weaver rail on a 10/22?

Someone had on rimfire, and had issues with 25 yard sighting because the front sight wasn't high enough - but they were using a heavy barrel with the front site channel cut into the barrel.  - so it's not clear to me if that would be an issue on the standard 10/22 - or the techsite front sight.

I'd give it whirl but my AR is an A2.

It would be nice to have the thumb-adjust on the elevation and windage (It's become a chore finding and keeping track of the adjustment tool.)

[fepowered]

so it's not clear to me if that would be an issue on the standard 10/22 - or the techsite front sight.

The difference is huge.  Neither a Tech-Sight nor a factory front sight post is anyhwere near high enough.   It is simply not necessary to have so much adjustment on a LTR. 

[MCKNBRD]

The difference is huge.  Neither a Tech-Sight nor a factory front sight post is anyhwere near high enough.   It is simply not necessary to have so much adjustment on a LTR. 

Precisely why I recommend the TSR-100 on the basic LTR.  Less expensive, simpler, and does the job just fine.  If you like the adjustment wheel on the rear, pick up the DPMS 'Rapidex' windage knob.  Extra bonus: it give you an extra notch of adjustment, as there are 10 detents instead of 5, as on the A1 rear sight.

MCKNBRD

[gjwilliamsjr]

  What can you tell us about the hammer? In other words, does it appear to need to be replaced? Or are you looking to lighten the trigger pull by using an atermarket hammer?  Is it fairly tight in the housing? (Little side to side movement) I assume the hammer/ sear surface could still be polished to lighten the trigger.

   I would guess the new hammer is a means of reducing production costs. One part instead of three.

I was replacing it to lighten the trigger--I don't have a scale, but I can hang the rifle by its trigger and it won't fire. (how much does a 10/22 carbine weigh?)  There is no noticeable play (side to side) in the hammer at all.  It looks as though you could polish it w/o any problems.  I've never done it before, so I figured I'd replace it and then play with polishing later.  I think you're right about production costs--It's the only reason I can think of for changing it.  Here is a great article about the hammers and trigger housings http://ruger22.com/plastic.htm 

[eaglescouter]

http://tinyurl.com/triggerjob

[eaglescouter]

Where can a DPMS 'Rapidex' windage knob be acquired since MidwayUSA is out of stock?

[CaptG]

DPMS sells direct. Whether or not they have one in stock may be another question. The last parts I got from them took about 4 months.
Guy

[dwarven1]

When you DO get that Rapidex knob, I recommend engraving an arrow on it so you know which direction moves the sights left or right - something I just noticed was that lack and I will be fixing that very shortly.

[rube]

I have read that the Uncle Mike's Swivel Stud 115 B set is recommended for wooden stocked 10/22s.
Is the same set recommended for synthetic stocked rifles or is there something better?

Thanks,

Rube

[gunville]

Are the tech sights designed for a specific length 10/22 barrel?

I have a shorter barrel - 18" - and I find I really have to turkey neck to get the front sight in view in the aperature (I don't see much difference between aperature settings either.)

And, the elevation clicks are not near the 1/8" at 20 yards specified (maybe I can borrow a lead slead and figure exactly what they are but I'm guessing 1/3".)

If I compare to my AR, (22" barrel) I can see the front sight easily - not sure if it's because of the larger aperature or the greater lenght of the barrel.

I'm wondering how it is for you guys with the wally world 22" 10/22?

[eaglescouter]

Gunville makes an excellent mathmatical point.  Different length between front and rear sight will make for a different adjustment per click at any fixed target distance.  However I do not know if the difference is large enough to be an issue on a 16" carbine vs an 18" T or a 22" Wallyworld. 

[gunville]

I did a quick calculation (and like most quick calculations it's probably wrong) but from an 18" to 22", sight at same height, a 1/8" click on the 18" should only be about 10% higher - very small.

But on the sight picture end - I think the extra 6" makes the front sight small enough to fit in the aperature considerably further back on the stock.

A couple of beers and I'll tackle that math.

(Were did I put my TI55?)

[Dude]

I'll go out on a limb, without a calculator, just from logic. [I'm sure some one will let me know if my logic is faulty! ] If you change from 22 to 18, it's about a 20% change, ballpark. So, would not the results downrange be 5 clicks on the 22inch yielding about the same change as 4 clicks on the 18inch?

To quote Buzzworth; "Squares are your friend!" They'll tell the story.

[MCKNBRD]

Factory 10/22s were/are equipped with one of four barrel lengths: 16.5", 18.5", 20" or 22".  90+% of the 10/22s that left the factory are 'Carbines' (model 10/22 RB) and have the 18.5" barrel.  One of my ongoing goals is to get a barrel of each length and equip it with Tech-Sights and see EXACTLY what the IMC calibrations are for each one.  As well as what the IMC is for an A2 (4 detents, instead of 5) front sight post equipped Tech Sight.

If anyone has a WWS 10/22 (the only one I know of that has the 22" barrel) or 10/22 CRR (the youth model with the 16.5" barrel) that they're rebarreling, I'd love to borrow it for a couple of weeks and see what the adjustments are...

MCKNBRD

[Junior Birdman]

  I'll save you the trouble on the 22" bbl: For the 200's it's .8 MOA per click.

[BaldDragn]

and BD sets up JB....

[gunville]

I'm calculating 0.114" difference (lower) at 100yd for a 22" barrel - assuming the 5/8" is correct for the TS at 100yds.  Noise for our purpose, especially at 82ft.

[Junior Birdman]

    Dangit!    (But thanks anyway, BD!)

    Anyway.......Does it really matter?  At Appleseed we train folks to use their rifles to it's fullest potential, and that requires some IMC work.  You can give a man a fish, (Tell him that each click will move the poi "X" amount), or you can teach a man to fish, (Tell him to try 1:1 and see what happens).

   Unless the guy is already shooting REALLY well, around our desired 4 moa, I don't think it'll make any difference to them initially. They can figure it out on their own as their abilities inprove. I bet you that at that stage the guy isn't even calling the shots, so..........

   When the fellow with the M-4gery, with the rails, collapsible stock, bipod, EOTech, back up irons, cell phone charger, iPod, quad speakers, mix and match upper and lower asks you what each click of the rear sight does you just shrug and say "Try 1 moa per click and see what happens". Then he can take the data observed from that movement and apply it to the next one.  So his group only moves half the distance he wanted it to? He knows he has 1/2 moa sights, right?  Group moves twice as far as intended? He must have 2 moa sights. And he LEARNED something he can pass on to others!

   This ain't rocket science and such information, while nice to have, isn't really necessary on the line at an Appleseed.

   Teach them the concept of IMC, make sure they understand it well, and turn them loose to learn to fish.   I'm just sayin.........

   And for the record, I have yet to see a Tech-Sight(ed) rifle have the same poi shift per click that is stated in the instructions. Has anyone else?  So you might want to use the real world methods described above on the line.

[gunville]

No, it doesn't matter - I'm not concerned about .114" at 100yd or .57" at 500 yd.

The answer is still good to know, but sometimes there is more learning in the exercise than in the answer.

[notarex]

I'm having a problem with blurriness and floaters in the rear ghost ring of my Tech-sights. The fuzzines obscures the target and front post and is becoming frustrating. Moving my head forward or back does not correct this problem. Anyone else experience this?

[Rhodes]

I'm having a problem with blurriness and floaters in the rear ghost ring of my Tech-sights. The fuzzines obscures the target and front post and is becoming frustrating. Moving my head forward or back does not correct this problem. Anyone else experience this?

Have you contacted Tech-Sights? Mine work well , better than my eyes at least.

[gunville]

Fuzzy rear sight?

I've heard of some that can't focus on the Front sight resort to a pair of readers (but I can't understand how they can put together a sight picture and a call with readers.)

maybe time for a visit to the eye doctor?

[Cookie]

I've always had good experiences with Tech Sights. I agree with gunville go to the optomatrist. 


    -ERS

[Rhodes]

With peep sights the opening has to be the right size or the front sight will be blurred. Problem is everyone eyes are different and larger opening in the front decreases accuracy. Check with Tech-Sights and ask them about it, proper sight picture is crucial. If you don't have any problems reading you shouldn't have to get your eyes checked but do it anyway for jic.

[snaphook75]

Regarding a fuzzy-appearing rear aperture sight: perhaps it's just my bad eyes, but I don't think the aperture will ever be in focus if you're focusing on the front sight or target. 

When I align the sights, I'm usually looking mostly at the front sight, with the rear looking like a fuzzy donut, then when I bring the sights onto target, the target is clear and both sights are fuzzy. Finally, shifting focus to the front sight (with my eye and my mind...right?) the rear sight is still fuzzy.

Does anyone out there really see a crystal clear rear sight during any of these phases? (If so, I'm jealous!)

[AFTERMATH]

If they do, and still retain front sight focus; I want their eyes!

The rear sight should be blurry, if you are focusing on the front sight.  (In fact, the rear sight is so close to your eye, most people couldn't even focus on it if they tried.)
Your eye can only focus on one thing at a time, so blurry rear sight, blurry target, crisp clear front sight- is perfect.
Now, the extent of the blur on the target can become an issue, but as long as you can still focus on the front sight, and place it in the center of the blur, you'll be fine.
The rear sight really isn't as important as it may seem.  This is the reason for 'turkey-necking' or consistant cheek-weld.  So you can pretty-much forget about that rear sight.
Line up the sights, place the sights on the target and focus on that front sight.
Skip the focusing on the target, it may cause you to draw your focus off the front sight.

[notarex]

The rear sight is a "ghost" ring for a reason and should be blurry, I agree. The problem is I'm seeing fuzzy lines and dots inside the ring, and therefore obscuring the front post and target...