Replicas of the M-16 rifle, which one?

[His lordship.]

I held a .22 rim fire replica of the M-16 rifle yesterday, it was a Colt that was made by Umarex.  From what I could see there appears to be a pot metal or aluminum bolt in the receiver, signs of heat treatment for hardening, etc.  This gun really looked and felt like an M-16. 

I had a CO-2 air pistol of the Walther P-88 made by Umarex 10 years ago, nice shooter, but the hammer was soft, wearing a little fast, traded it.  My new RWS 52 air rifle, which is made well, is under the Umarex name, so the brand may or may not reflect quality of the past or present.

I have read articles on the Smith and Wesson M-16 .22 cal. rifle, everybody says that the trigger is heavy, but the gun is very reliable, the tests done are on the abusive side, but the gun seems to take it.  Ruger makes the SR-22, a quasi replica of the M-16 as well.  I am thinking of getting one of the replicas as the real M-4 models out there have a mean bark with the muzzle brake, and the difference in cost between the .223 and .22 rim fire does add up.     

Does anyone have one of the replicas of the M-16 in .22 rim fire, and if so, which of the brands/variants do they like the best?  Will these guns hold up with the non-steel bolts and receivers in them as a .22 gets shot alot?

Thanks. 

[saddlebum]

I know nothing about .22lr M16 clones, but you might want to look at the Archangel stock kit for the Ruger 10/22. I don't know if it's M16 enough for you. 10/22s are quality and parts are plentiful and easy to get. Things like banana clips, internal parts, triggers and such. I have no experience with them. Just thought they look neat for a tactical type .22.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F8HZ6Z5ZdQ&feature=related

http://www.archangelmanufacturing.com/iriflestock556R1022.htm

http://ruger.com/products/sr22/models.html

[Victor3]

 Several months back I read everything I could find on the new crop of .22 'black rifles' and ended up with the Sig for various reasons.

 It would take too much typing to go into all of the pros & cons here, but please do yourself a favor and reasearch them all before buying one. Believe me, there are lots of positives & negatives you'll want to know about them to prevent buyer's remorse. Lots of good info on rimfirecentral about all of them.

 One thing I will say.... After reading about the pot metal construction, cracking receivers, lousy trigger, difficulty of disassembly for cleaning, painted finish coming off, phony charging handle, drinking straw diameter inner barrel and various other negatives, I crossed the Colt/Umarex off my list right away.


 

[His lordship.]

Viktor 3...you are wise.  Two days ago I finished up reading on the Smith and Wesson and the Colt .22 AR-15  replicas, and decided not to buy, that is a good $570.00 that I did not have to throw away.  It was a lot of work to research, but I will stick with something else.

[oldandslow]

Everything in the Colt that has stress is steel. Watch the Colt video and you will find it is not necessary to completely dismantle it to clean it. Just loosen the flash hider, push out the rear receiver pin and swing the action open, blow it out with one of the pressurized cleaners, put a few drops of oil on the firing pin. replace the pin  and tighten the flash hider and you are good to go. I own the Colt. Sweet rifle and very accurate. A .22 semi-auto has no need for a charging handle that actually works and the trigger is not lousy, just heavy like the real Colt,  but is very crisp with very little movement. The receiver is not pot metal unless aluminum fits your definition of pot metal. Haven't had any paint peeling either. My local gunshop sells them like hotcakes and doesn't have any complaints.

I have shot my son-in-law's Smith & Wesson. It's receiver is a composite material. It is lighter than the Colt and the trigger has some take-up and over travel and is as heavy as the Colt. I can't get groups quite as good with it as I do with the Colt but it is still an accurate .22. The shop where this rifle was purchased sells these like hotcakes too. Both rifles have their preference of ammo.

The Ruger is just a 10/22 wearing a fancy dress. I understand the Remington is is a dressed up version of their semi-auto also although I've forgotten what the number designation is.

[williamlayton]

Get the Remington--you will never look back at the cost and say it was not worth it.
Blessings

[Victor3]

My local gunshop sells them like hotcakes and doesn't have any complaints.

 My shop too, along with all of the other recent models (Sig, S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc). Nary a complaint about any of them that they'll openly admit to. 

 Fact is, they all have their 'problems'. Among many negatives, the S&W can fire out of battery. The Ruger weighs (and costs) a ton. The Remington (like the Ruger) is just their standard action in a fancy shell. The early model Sig's bolt assy would fall apart, and it doesn't come with sights.

 All I'm saying is, know what you're getting into before you plunk down cash. I determined that the Sig's issues were things I could deal with, and for me personally, the positives outnumbered the negatives.

 As they say, "YMMV"

[williamlayton]

Well, he was asking for replicas.
Blessings

[hummer58]

Order you a CLE 22 upper and put it on your ar-15 lower. Expensive yes but nothing else compares. Match rifle quality and accuracy.

[His lordship.]

Wouldn't it be great if someone made a decent .22 rim fire replica of several famous military rifles, like the M-1 Garand, carbine, and German STG-44?

[oldandslow]

Update on the S&W I mentioned my son-in-law purchased. It's having lots of problems with the ammo we were using when I shot it. Lots of fail to feed and also fail to fire issues. It hasn't been shot enough to be dirty enough to cause this either. I had heard the early ones had these problems but that they were fixed. Looks like they might have missed one.

[od green]

If you are looking for a replica you might want to look at ARMSCOR M1600 I think. I don't own one but the one I saw looked ok and they are fairly inexpensive.

[Huffmanite]

Gent I shoot with on a regular basis, at range we are members, put a 22LR conversion kit (from Midway?) in his AR recently.  At range day he tried out the rifle with kit.  I happened to have 4 or so different brands/kinds of 22 LR ammo with me that day that I let him try.....so about 8 different kinds fired thru it.  Think he was happy with both how ammo fed and performed in the rifle.  I didn't check his 50 yard targets closely for accuracy, but gent did comment something to the effect that he wasn't disappointed in rifles accuracy with the kit.

[Victor3]

Update on the S&W I mentioned my son-in-law purchased. It's having lots of problems with the ammo we were using when I shot it. Lots of fail to feed and also fail to fire issues. It hasn't been shot enough to be dirty enough to cause this either. I had heard the early ones had these problems but that they were fixed. Looks like they might have missed one.

 Unfortunately, along with the out of battery issue, the S&W is ammo-sensitive. So much so that S&W now recommends only certain brands be used in it. A shame, because I really wanted one after handling it in the shop. It's such a neat, light weight gun.

 The Sig, although not an AR clone like the S&W, seems pretty good to me so far. A 1" @ 50 yd rifle with very good (and simple) design and construction. Uses the proven Black Dog mags that most 22 AR conversions use, and four brands of cheap ammo I've tried have worked without a single jam. Really nice trigger too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3ilpMzqDq4