…as long as you don’t need/want a snug barrel fit - my 4 BRN 22s all seem to have marginally bigger barrel holes than even Ruger OEMs.
All mine are in off-hand builds.
At least you don’t have to worry about the holes being crooked.

 

Was not my experience with one. While it WAS a little bigger than OEM, I still needed to spend some quality time with a heat gun in order to get a Kidd bbl in. If getting the Kidd into OEM scored 100 on the PITA scale, getting it into the BRN receiver was an 85.

 

Brownells has increased their prices substantially. Not worth it anymore to me. I'll go with a couple of proven winners and I'm for sure NOT using a Ruger receiver.

 

Brn22 reciever with brownells nitride bolt

 

Great looking rifle, what stock and barrel do you have? Thanks

 

currahee thats a nice group. Who's barrel did you use"

 

Sorry took so long to answer. It is a Ruger LVT barrel

 

Just put a Kidd barrel on a Brownells receiver. Had to freeze the barrel and use a heat gun on the receiver just
to get it started. Receiver probably a couple years old and just got around to building.

 

Ruger walnut sporter stock and a Ruger LVT barrel

 

I had to heat my Brownells receiver to get a Green Mountain barrel in.

 

I used a Brownell's receiver and a Feddersen barrel and the barrel just slipped right in. I was a little worried the rifle wouldn't be very precise, but I shot a 10-shot group at 25 yards (prepping for a Project Appleseed clinic) into 1 hole. I also used a JWH custom bolt and charging handle. It all seems to work well together.

 

I am looking into this receiver as well. Comparing it to the FAxon receiver as they are about the same price.

 

I've seen some reports of the Faxon receiver having oversized barrel holes..even their own barrel are loose in them...

 

Brownells has a 15% off sale right now if price is the deciding factor.

 

I second what cc said. Their website gives directions on how to remedy barrel droop in their receivers. That's a red flag. A tight fitting receiver eliminates the possibility of a drooping barrel.

 

I honestly think that the receiver, provided it is dimensionally accurate, plays little to no role in anything, except bling.

Brownells all day and on Sunday.

 

I used to think that way as well. A good receiver will have a barrel bore parallel to the receiver which will prevent barrel cant. The bore will not be oversized which will prevent barrel droop.

 

haven't heard much good about the Faxon barrels either...have you? the info on the barrels that I could find is somewhat limited though

and which Feddersen receiver did you pick?

those bronze nickel ones look pretty sweet..

 

I just got my first Brownells receiver a few months ago I am using a Feddersen 16.5 Bull Barrel. The barrel was loose going into the receiver. Using the Gunsmither Barrel Block solved any drooping issue I am super happy with the accuracy I am getting. If I do my part 50 yards is one ragged hole. Got a chance to go 200 yards and I’m super happy with the accuracy.

I did try a Faxon receiver and I also can confirm the hole was way oversized. Plus no response from there customer service.

 

I just finished putting mine together yesterday and couldn’t be happier. (So far) Brownells railed receiver I ordered earlier this year, Kidd ULW barrel, Houge overmold stock, Ruger bolt and BX trigger… scope is SIG 1-6x24 Tango MSR. I’ve function tested it by running a few magazines through it, but haven’t sighted it in yet.
When putting the barrel on, I wouldn’t have wanted the barrel hole any looser OR tighter…IMHO it was about as perfect a fit as could be desired… no freezing or heat required.

 

When putting the barrel on, I wouldn’t have wanted the barrel hole any looser OR tighter…IMHO it was about as perfect a fit as could be desired… no freezing or heat required.

If I don't have to use heat when installing a barrel on a "precision" something or other, I get bummed out. Probably doesn't actually matter on something like an AR, but on a 10/22 with the non-circumferential barrel retaining system, in my imagination that barrel is wobbling all over the place.

But.... probably doesn't really matter. Just my "gotta have SOMETHING to worry about" OCD kicking in.

 

Great looking rifle!

 

The toes…not so much. 😂

 

I always thought it would be nice if the barrel mfg's would mark the shank size of their barrels and keep them inventoried by size. I have a hunch the vast majority want nothing to due with a thermo fit.

 

In my experience Kidd and Clark barrels have been the best in regard to requiring heating the receiver to install. They are also both turned and chambered from Lothar Walther blanks, which are excellent. Feddersen and Lilja have been the worst. The easily slid into the receivers and had a relatively loose fit. The bores are very nice on both, however.

 

Here’s a video from Tony Kidd for those who continue to think that because you don’t have to freeze or heat your receiver to get a snug fit, your receiver hole is oversized…

 

Like the man says…if it don’t fit…bake it.

 

I think I’d be more inclined to take some fine emery cloth and “shoeshine” the tendon…I’ve never tried the bake method so I can’t honestly comment other than to “GUESS” that if you ever go to remove/replace the barrel, you MIGHT run into issues.

 

Just heat the receiver again. Aluminum expands at a higher rate than steel.

 

I think I’d be more inclined to take some fine emery cloth and “shoeshine” the tendon…I’ve never tried the bake method so I can’t honestly comment other than to “GUESS” that if you ever go to remove/replace the barrel, you MIGHT run into issues.

you just need a barrel pusher to remove tight barrels

I’m not a metallurgist, but back in the day, I used to anneal some of my centerfire cases to soften up the necks… kinda makes me wonder if some of the “infrequent” reports of elongated recoil buffer holes in the 10/22 might be related to overheating the receiver???

more likely due to the poor quality of the alloy Ruger now uses for their receivers...the same reason you can't anodize one any longer

 

more likely due to the poor quality of the alloy Ruger now uses for their receivers...the same reason you can't anodize one any longer

They can't be anodized any more?! I figured they just switched to paint to save a few pennies.

 

The alloy Ruger uses is fine for casting and hasn't changed substantially since the sixties. Most aftermarket receivers are machined from alloys not designed for casting which is why they are somewhat better and more expensive. The Reason Ruger no longer anodizes isn't because they can't it's because the finishing process was labor intensive, and they abandoned it to save money. If you've ever stripped a newer receiver, the difference will be immediately obvious. Anodizing requires a smooth defect free surface. Some aluminum casting alloys can be annealed, and heat treated. Annealing temperature is between 570- and 770-degrees Fahrenheit. Some heat guns can reach 1000 degrees Fahrenheit of more. You pays your money and you takes your choice

 

Hello,
For the BRN-22 receiver the smooth top model.
What's a good 0 MOA rail, cause I got a UTG pro rail. Not sure if it's 0 MOA or 20, 30, I don't know.
Cause the same rail on a original Ruger receiver with same scope had no issues with running out of upward travel. But put that rail on the BRN-22 receiver and I run out of upward travel on my scope.
My scope is a Swampfox Patriot 6-24x50 with a Swampfox Independence scope mount. I've had this scope on several rifles and no issues with running out of elevation clicks. I zero stopped my turrent all the way down, counted 67 MOA, 1 clicks equals 1/4 MOA, so 4 clicks would be 1 MOA.
But I shoot @ 50 yards, so that would be half that. So it would be 1 click=1/8 MOA @ 50 yds.
So 4 clicks would equal .5" MOA @ 50 yrds.
I'm just trying to figure out what change between the BRN-22 receiver and the standard Ruger receiver.
Any suggestions on a different rail would be appreciated. I have a Vortex Diamondback 6-24x50 FFP with the EBR-2C reticle. Thinking about trying that scope to see if it's the rail.
The Swampfox Patriot is also a FFP but maybe the Vortex has more travel. I've been all over Vortex and Swampfox website and no information on turnet travel.

 

Hello,
For the BRN-22 receiver the smooth top model.
What's a good 0 MOA rail, cause I got a UTG pro rail. Not sure if it's 0 MOA or 20, 30, I don't know.
Cause the same rail on a original Ruger receiver with same scope had no issues with running out of upward travel. But put that rail on the BRN-22 receiver and I run out of upward travel on my scope.
My scope is a Swampfox Patriot 6-24x50 with a Swampfox Independence scope mount. I've had this scope on several rifles and no issues with running out of elevation clicks. I zero stopped my turrent all the way down, counted 67 MOA, 1 clicks equals 1/4 MOA, so 4 clicks would be 1 MOA.
But I shoot @ 50 yards, so that would be half that. So it would be 1 click=1/8 MOA @ 50 yds.
So 4 clicks would equal .5" MOA @ 50 yrds.
I'm just trying to figure out what change between the BRN-22 receiver and the standard Ruger receiver.
Any suggestions on a different rail would be appreciated. I have a Vortex Diamondback 6-24x50 FFP with the EBR-2C reticle. Thinking about trying that scope to see if it's the rail.
The Swampfox Patriot is also a FFP but maybe the Vortex has more travel. I've been all over Vortex and Swampfox website and no information on turnet travel.

That is not how MOA works.

 

Your problem is probably not the scope mount or scope, but the barrel/receiver fit. This causes barrel droop and problems with zeroing the scope. Using a Gunsmither block often fixes the problem, see the lonk below.

Another cause could be over-tightening the barrel bolts - they only need to be snug with around 12-15 in-lbs of torque. Too, the barrel hole could be drilled crooked.

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/threads/10-22-barrel-droop.1319463/?post_id=13614747#post-13614747

.