Was looking over new 10/22 carbines the other day and was sorely disappointed. They felt rough and wood to metal fit was way too sloppy...What happened?? Mine(made in 1987) is much better fitted, and never had that rough feeling bolt...did I just get luck as a kid?

You are comparing a gun made 28 years ago with one made by current manufacturing processes. Current suggested retail is $289 which would convert to about $135 in 1987 dollars. Ruger apparently felt the need to keep the price down somehow. The change is not as bad as pre vs. post-64 Winchesters, but the reasoning is the same.

I wonder if some of it doesn't stem from the assumption that everyone is going to replace everything possible with all of the after-market parts that are going to turn it into a super-duper, customized, "personal firearm" anyway, so why bother.

I had one in the early 80s. nice stock and pretty handy rifle for just about everything a college kid could hunt. I ended up selling it to a buddy and regretted it ever since. I've looked at the new ones over the years and they just weren't the same. I lucked into a 1974 model with a walnut cut checkered stock and no barrel band on the LGS rack a couple weeks ago. For $225 out the door I think I did ok. No plastic on this one. Now to get the trigger "worked".

I had one of the first 10-22s (Walnut stock) and also have a Deluxe with a Walnut stock plus a couple newer models. To me, 10-22s have always seemed rather hastily assembled. Mine are all metal trigger guard variants, though.

PS: I once bought a Deluxe which, at that time, only came in blue finish, and also bought a stainless regular model. I switched the action/barrels and now have a stainless Deluxe and a blued regular (but with a stainless barrel band).