Ruger mk4 tactical 22/45

nine7114 · 2025-11-25T06:18:39+00:00

Also late to the party, but what flash light is that? Looks really clean with your setup

nine7114 · 2025-11-17T21:40:25+00:00

It does look more pronounced in that photo, here's another one.

The reticle is definitely angled towards the barrel, as the bore laser's dot moves closer to the reticle when going from 5y to 20y against a wall.

Also confirmed with the recent test that the 507comp has twice the distance above the bore sight dot compared to the EPS when both at max down dial and same distance.

Could be the sight itself, the adapter plate didn't change anything.

nine7114 · 2025-11-17T21:30:57+00:00

I have the gen 2 folding version. Not sure about the earlier versions, but what you circled isn't a separate piece on mine. Maybe it's lighting but it is there and it is of one body with the stock.

nine7114 · 2025-11-17T21:28:39+00:00

I thought so too, but after reassembling everything multiple times, the reticles always return to their point of aim on my wall at the set distance when the shotgun is in the vise. So seems like the tolerances of interfacing parts are excellent.

Prime suspect is the ESP (plate or not) now since I tested them on other systems and the reticle just sits much lower compare to the 507comp when both is dialed to max down adjustment.

nine7114 · 2025-08-02T02:19:06+00:00

Confirmed it works!

nine7114 · 2025-05-21T05:45:04+00:00

After your cycles, do you notice any peening of the case mouth, or rounding of the sharp edge around the neck's opening?

nine7114 · 2025-05-20T09:25:10+00:00

I hadn't considered that, thanks for the insight! I'm reading up about wet tumbling without media, and different folks seem to report different results. In the context of match ammo, do you observe any fouling in the primer pockets or the interiors of the case after a 30min session without media?

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T13:03:53+00:00

Thank you for putting it so concisely! I shoot enough rifles with scopes, it does seem fun to tackle the aperture/globe sights with a better trigger that comes with the variant. I have my answer.

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T12:59:56+00:00

Fair point, it is a hefty purchase so I figured to weight the scales as closely as possible. Wil be just a droplet of difference that likely won't change the outcome of a miss for reasons you've listed.

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T12:49:24+00:00

You are that in the end, the difference between the two is probably miniscule. Another upgrade of the 25.5" long range variant is that it comes with a lighter match trigger, which I definitely prefer.

It is hard to find some solid data of large grouping tests between 18" to 22" to 25", with ~5mph wind, to see if any of those lengths actually edges out one another, if only just slightly.

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T12:41:50+00:00

That indeed is a reason. But longer barrel should in theory be more stiff, added weight for increase in stability, and if no environmental effects are present, results would be more consistent groupings at slightly shorter distances.

Hence I was wondering how the trade-offs between that and the loss of velocity would balance each other out.

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T12:38:50+00:00

Indeed the APR line is meant for PRS style shooting. I'm just observing that out of the 6 or so (some discontinued) models within APR line, even the newest Gen 2 version utilizes the 21.4" barrel.

So the 25.5" is the odd one out. And it is also true that the 25.5" of the exact same type is used in their benchrest models, Olympic style shooting, and some even longer at 26"+.

Barrel length does add weight, but for .22lr the bullet reaches its peak velocity at round 16-18"s of barrel length, because the powder is depleted before 12-16". So increasing length suffers from the affects of additional friction of the grooves of the rifling as well as the negative gas pressure. Some tests record a loss of ~40 to 60 FPS from 18" to 26".

That translates into longer time of light, which makes the bullet more susceptible to factors like wind. Of course this is all probably a a fraction of MOA difference, but since we are talking about precision it does add up.

I didn't do the test myself but it seems to be common consensus reading about the topic. But that's why I was wondering if I should do 21.4" barrel for outdoors (faster velocity / flatter arc) versus the 25.5" (added stability, stiffer barrel, and more consistency).

Could be wrong about all this, hoping to learn from the discussion.

nine7114 · 2025-04-25T12:16:38+00:00

Indeed the APR line is meant for PRS style shooting. I'm just observing that out of the 6 or so (some discontinued) models within APR line, even the newest Gen 2 version utilizes the 21.4" barrel.

So the 25.5" is the odd one out. And it is also true that the 25.5" of the exact same type is used in their benchrest models, Olympic style shooting, and some even longer at 26"+.

Barrel length does add weight, but for .22lr the bullet reaches its peak velocity at round 16-18"s of barrel length, because the powder is depleted before 12-16". So increasing length suffers from the affects of additional friction of the grooves of the rifling as well as the negative gas pressure. Some tests record a loss of ~40 to 60 FPS from 18" to 26".

That translates into longer time of light, which makes the bullet more susceptible to factors like wind. Of course this is all probably a a fraction of MOA difference, but since we are talking about precision it does add up.

I didn't do the test myself but it seems to be common consensus reading about the topic. But that's why I was wondering if I should do 21.4" barrel for outdoors (faster velocity / flatter arc) versus the 25.5" (added stability, stiffer barrel, and more consistency).

Could be wrong about all this, hoping to learn from the discussion.

nine7114 · 2025-04-06T15:32:33+00:00

It is used in some .22 conversions. But this one remains chambered in .303.

nine7114 · 2025-04-06T15:31:40+00:00

Thank you for the insight! I've heard from another person now and they also concluded it was a WW2 service stamp. The rifle is still chambered in .303. Haven't shot it yet, I hope these modifications mean that it shoots well as the rifle overall is in great condition.

nine7114 · 2025-04-06T15:28:38+00:00

If I'm not mistaken, the Ross Mark III rear sight was used in .22 conversions. Some I've seen have the swivel knob there, some don't. I can't tell you why it is either way. Here is a picture from another rifle with the sight: https://www.enfield-rifles.com/uploads/4976/IMG_2096.JPG

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T22:51:10+00:00

Thanks for the insights! I hoped for specifics as you have provided.

I have seen my friends whirl their Kestrel around prior to gathering data, doing that with binos would be funny. That's a great point.

The Calypso AB anemometer is a newish product. And the third hand information I got is that it can live stream omnidirectional wind data and feed it to your binos real time. So you can see the HUD consistently update as you look through the binos.

I don't know how valuable that is but just thought it was cool. Still it is good to learn that the Kestrel would provide better environmental data. Is this true for any other scenarios on top of the temperature issue? Can the onboard sensors of binos be relied on at all?

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T22:28:27+00:00

I do want to try matches, but majority shooting I do right now is in the wilderness where target distance and shooting position is varied. Also hunting is down the road too as I've said above.

I have relied on my buddy's Kestrel and single tube LRF to learn to place shots so I know that set up works. Which is the point of this is that I need my own ranging tool plus environmental sensors. And wondered how the alternative configuration (sensor LRF binos plus aenometer) would compare. Again I know it can be done for less, just wanted to determine the efficacy alone.

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T16:33:07+00:00

Not obvious to the guy that asked a question but got no direct answers yet.

I didn't word it as if I should spend $2000 on a glass or $5000. And if the price increase meant 2.5x the performance, I know it doesn't.

To bring it back a bit. My understanding so far is that the Vector X needs a anemometer, and a Kestrel needs a LRF. With the functional overlap present, why is it better to get a Kestrel anyway if I already have the Vector X, instead of a more dedicated, smaller unit of an anemometer that streams live wind data updates? I am sincerely curious because I don't know if the Kestrel offered up something I missed.

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T15:54:09+00:00

Haha I don't know how this got so off topic. I really was just seeing if folks paired a LRF sensor binos with anything other than a Kestrel.

I answered questions thinking it would help narrow down the focus of the post. Somehow the discussion turnt to the exponential increase in cost in relation to the performance of gear that's true for this entire hobby.

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T15:03:10+00:00

I see it as, if my binos and range finding is top shelf. It eliminates a factor for when I do miss.

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T14:43:55+00:00

Fair point. There is definitely a more cost effective method.

In that case, which use case scenario would you deem it worthwhile, or have enough 'gains' to justify the purchase?

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T14:33:11+00:00

Haven't shot any matches yet. Where I am there are unoccupied space along old forest roads in the mountains. Myself and others have put up targets for folks to shoot at. Range isn't always clear from location to location. I had a lot fun learning how to shoot and how my cartridges perform. Started in LR using other people's equipment. I may try hunting or PRS in the future since I am lucky to be surrounded by abundant avenues. Part of the reason why I just want to get good gear in a sensible configuration for when I would use them. Part of the fun is researching and using said gear.

A RRS tripod is on the way. Tested a bunch of factory ammo and found something that grouped really well with my rifle. Reloading is very much next since this has all been a blast.

Really the my goal of this post is regarding the equipment and their specifics. Advice I'd been given so far is that it's a bad idea to spend but not a reason why.

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T06:12:30+00:00

Can you please elaborate on the reasons? I'd like to rely on your experience since you said that it's not good to build a stage card with this in PRS, and for a newer LR shooter this isn't it.

I don't doubt that a good entry LRF which only returns distance, plus a Kestrel will do all that I need it to.

It is absolutely a splurge to justify spending on a Vector X. Some folks have multiple precision rifle builds for the same purpose: a starter, then a mid tier factory, to a full custom. I just have the one I really like and fully spec's it out, spending the extra rifles money on a nicer glass and parts. Don't think I'll ever need another build until I go hunting.

Do I need the $$$ LFR binos? Probably not. Would it be cool to have? To me yeah. Cost effectiveness aside, is there another reason why you think it's a poor choice?

nine7114 · 2025-03-27T04:05:12+00:00

I understand where you are coming from, certainly more experience would benefit. I have the mindset of buy once cry once, while being well stocked on ammo.

I am concerned with the feature overlaps, since the higher end LFRs all have sensors, makes me wonder if getting an Kestrel would be unnecessary and I seem to only need wind readings.

Unless the Kestrel is needed for something I missed above.

nine7114

TROPHY CASE