Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Rimfire Forum' started by auto-5, Apr 29, 2012.
Does it serve a purpose? Or do you take them off?
Simply cosmetic... and it depends, on individual tastes and if the stock design includes it, then shoot it with and without, to see if it has a negative impact on accuracy.
A lot of people relieve the inside of the band so it doesn't make contact with the barrel. I took mine off and cut the stock flush.
We use a lot of 10/22s as loaners in the the shooting program I am involved in. We usually just take the barrel bands off.
It's not just cosmetic, but a calculated part of the original design. The barrel was not designed to be free floating, rather the last 0.5" of the stock is meant to press up against the barrel and the barrel band keeps this contact relatively constant.
The barrel band also alters the harmonic node of the barrel. Removing or relieving the inside of the band is usually done after completely free floating the barrel. This is of questionable value without also recutting a match grade chamber (or buying a better barrel).
Bill Ruger would never have included the part if it hadn't been seen as important to the design of the rifle. The 10/22 was never intended to be a precision target rifle.
All this being said, I don't mean to imply that accuracy will definitely be either improved or worsened by removing the band on a given rifle on a given day. There are too many variables going on. But it has been my experience that just taking the band off (with no other modifications) will cause POI to change and accuracy to decrease. I have had better results by increasing the pressure on the barrel by adding a couple pieces of electrical tape to the point where the stock touches the barrel and keeping the band.
At any rate it's a fun way to spend an afternoon doing some experiments.
Before I modded my 10/22, I tested it accuracy-wise with and without the band.
If you are using the factory barrel and stock, you need the band in place.
My gut tells me a gun mfg would not add such a band for only ascetics purposes.
without the band with CCI Blazer mine shot a .32, .25, .24 and a .09" ctc. after putting the band back on it shot .27, .21, .21 and .14. so an average of .225 vs. .207". not much in terms of average, but overall the gun is more consistent with the band. test your rifle both ways and see what it likes.
It serves as the front sling shackle for mine.
The barrel band (and the curved butt plate) was put on the original 44 mag carbine (Deerstalker 1959) to emulate the style of the old saddle ring lever action carbines. Cowboy style guns were big in 50s & 60s due to all the westerns on TV. Ruger had the Single Six and then the Blackhawk revolvers which were quite popular.
The 10/22 (1964) was a downsized version of the 44 carbine. The band is purely cosmetic as evidenced by the fact that you can buy 10/22 models with or without.
I stand corrected - thank you.
Cosmetic. I did not notice any difference in accuracy with the band on or off.
I went ahead and went with this. I wanted a new truck gun and wanted a sling. I went with the all-weather stainless with a synthetic stock. 5 min with a drill and knife and the little plastic son of a gun made a pretty good bracket. Glad you told me about that.
The inspiration for the Ruger .44 Carbine and the 10/22 was the M1 Carbine.
Machining the barrel band and the stock to accept it for purely cosmetic reasons would have been completely contrary to the business philosophy and practices that have made Ruger successful for so long. Nothing unnecessary or overly complex was added to these early, low-end guns, as evidenced by the fact that the .44 Carbine was discontinued - not because it wasn't an excellent rifle (it is a great rifle, I love shooting mine) but because it was overly complex to manufacture and thus not profitable enough.
The benefit of the barrel band should be considered in the context of the manufacturers point of view. It is not really a question of whether taking the band off of one rifle makes a significant difference in accuracy. From Ruger's perspective it was a question of tens of thousands of rifles sent to every part of the country and used in every season and weather condition. The original design with pressure on the barrel from the stock and the band would have reduced the potential for extreme variations in performance across this broad spectrum of users. That would mean less complaints from customers, less returns for repair and a reputation for being a solid, durable firearm.
The fact that 10/22's are available without barrel bands does not have any bearing on the purpose of the original design; it simply means some people didn't want that feature and Ruger was willing to cater to there wishes.
Bill Ruger has been quoted as saying the 44 and 22 are designed after the old lever action carbines not the M1 carbine. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
I think WBR was referring to his 96/xx series of lever-actions which he intentionally styled after the Savage 99, a rifle he was quite fond of. The 96 series was offered in .22LR, .22WMR, .17HMR and .44 Magnum.
The quote I read by Bill Ruger was way before the 96 (1990s) came out. I will however concede that perhaps Ruger had the M1 Carbine as well as the western style carbines in mind when he came up with the 44 (1959-60) and the 10/22 (1964).
One has to look at Ruger's history to get an idea of what he might have been thinking at the time. Ruger's first firearm was the Standard 22 pistol right after WWII. It was reminiscent of the P08 German Luger which certainly contributed to it's success.
Could he have used the same logic (WWII style) for his first rifle, the 44 carbine? Possibly, but by the time the 44 carbine came out (1959-60) his company was built off the success of Single Six, and Blackhawk single action revolvers. This was primarily because of popularity of the TV and movie westerns. He was pretty innovative and so basing a semi auto carbine (the 44 mag Deerstalker was originally a tube fed BTW) after the western style carbines of movies/TV at the time was within his design parameters. The curved butt plate is western style not M1 carbine. The barrel band is certainly more Western than military looking.
Does the 10/22 remind people of the M1 carbine? Certainly. Maybe Bill Ruger's genius was that he had knack for creating modern firearms with a classic appeal, both in a western and military sense.
FWIW in the late 40s IIRC, Bill Ruger published an article in "The American Rifleman" on converting a Savage 99 to semi-auto by running the operating rod through the center of the rotary magazine. This influence his early designs and the 10-22 magazine as well