Anyone have any problems with a remington 552 dbl semi auto 22lr, lr, 22 short.
None with mine. Doesn't group Shorts well. Haven't found any Longs to try. Wolf Match Target shots well in it. It will feed and eject CCI's Quiet rounds but they don't group well.
Given the current quality of 22 ammo don't expect great accuracy from shorts....even CCI. Make sure your rifle action is clean to start with. Some ammo like Remington will gunk it up in no time. CCI or Federal American Eagle does great.
Have an old one. It is accurate with everything I have ever fed it and I've run LOTS of different ammo through it. Not 1 jam.
When I first got it about 25 years ago I poured shorts, longs and different speeds & nose profile long rifles into a paper lunch bag, mixed them up good and loaded them indiscriminately. No problems then and none since.
Anyone regardless of shooting experience has been able to shoot a tube full of whatever ammo we were shooting that day into dime sized groups at 25 yards. (From a bench)
I don't know how unusual that is - I've never heard of one that wasn't up to the same standard. They are excellent guns, but I hear that new ones are $500 to $600. Used ones are where you find them, and probably 1/2 the cost.
My 1967 BDL will function ok with shorts but accuracy's not as good as with LRs.
Thanks for the replies. I think I will pick up a new just to have in my collection.
The new 552s are nice rifles but their starting MSRP is over $700. You can probably get one for a little less but there are plenty of very good to excellent used ones out there for about half that or less. One negative IMO with the newer ones is the high stock comb. Good for a scope but makes it tough for most shooters to use the open sights. They're good open sights. The older models have enough drop in the stock that you can use a scope or open sights.
Aside from shooting around corners (it was bent at the receiver, or the tube was wonky, either way, there was no way it would shoot "to the sights". It was reliable, at least. I didn't buy it, it was my late brother's gun, and I inherited it.
My 552 did best w Yellowjackets.
Super X HP was good too.
Neither would do dime sized for 10 shots at 25, w sear spring change and 4X scope.
Good enough, but not that good.
Nice guns, overpriced today IMHO.
Same thing the 572.
Much prefer the high comb versions.
If wanting to run irons w that type of stock, I reckon one could change the front sight and run the rear up to match..
Or go with a taller front and maybe a peep for the grooved receiver.
Proly cheaper than a buttstock change. BDL furniture aint cheap.
But if not worried about matching, the stocks are easy to swap and one could get an older low comb plain jane version for 50-75 bucks.
IMHO the low comb stocks are too low for scope usage. Yeah, they work, but they aint ideal.
High comb..........and wanting irons..........will a reg 700 front sight work (ramp with a dovetailed bead)? Maybe use 1 screw since holes won't match up- and add in whatever bead height would be comfy.
Then raise the rear on its ramp and if need be, change the leaf height.
Or maybe just use a diff ramp for the front.
Yrs ago I redid a 700 BDL stock...........and that RKW finish was a PITA to remove. So I won't suggest sanding down a high comb stock and refinishing it.
Dunno if one could just take the comb down and get by with an area refinish that matches. Am not up on all the products/techniques that might allow for such.
I did one RKW stock. Won't do another LOL
Somebody way back took the comb down on my dad's 1100 Trap and they did great. Dunno how much that'd cost today.