September 29, 2010

Mossberg International Rolls Out Tactical .22 Autoloading Rimfires

(GunReports.com) – Mossberg International's new Tactical .22 parallels the look and feel of today’s AR-style rifle, though it's built around Mossberg International’s 702 autoloader.

The Tactical .22 matches an 18” barrel to a quad rail forend, allowing the operator to fit the rifle with lights, lasers or other tactical accessories.

Two stock configurations will be offered in this series: a six-position adjustable and fixed stock. The six-position polymer stock adjusts the length of pull from 10-3/4” – 14.5”. The fixed position stock has a standard 13” LOP.


The Tactical .22 is integrated with an A2-style carry handle and an adjustable rear sight aligned with a front post sight.

The Tactical .22 is integrated with an A2-style carry handle and an adjustable rear sight aligned with a front post sight. The Picatinny handle mount is included. Other features include sling mounts and a 10-round magazine.

MSRP: $276

Comments (11)

Well Gav I'd like to tell you how cool it was but as the old saying goes "When you're asshole deep in alligators you don't have time to drain the swamp." At the time I was using it you might say I was asshole deep in INDIANS, and I was definately deep in indian country. I learned early on if you're in indian country act like an indian or keep quiet, and yes the rugers were tactical also the suppressed Swedish K's.

Posted by: firstsoldier | October 3, 2010 5:09 AM    Report this comment

Firstsoldier: Well, yeah, now that you mention it, you're right. The suppressed Ruger .22 pistols that the CIA bought were pretty tactical, too, weren't they?

Tell us how cool it was to fire the suppressed American 180. Man, I envy you!

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 2, 2010 2:27 PM    Report this comment

I agree that tactical and rim fire in the same sentence is purely sales tactic. (Tactical sales?) But I have to hand it to Mossberg for making what looks like a cool little plinker at a lower price. This is capitalism at its finest because hopefully it will force some of the other manufacturers to lower their WAY over priced .22s to within reason. $500+ in my opinion is just ridiculous for a .22 unless it can cloverleaf at 100 yards right out of the box. I have yet to see a tacticool .22 that can. If they make reliable 30 round magazines available I’ll buy one.

Posted by: JOE S | October 1, 2010 5:55 AM    Report this comment

Well now ah does believe that a 22 can be tactical, take the American 180 with a sound suppressor, believe me (I've used one) it's tactical as hell.

Posted by: firstsoldier | October 1, 2010 4:32 AM    Report this comment

At least the MSRP is less than others.

Posted by: liljimi | September 30, 2010 11:46 PM    Report this comment

Actually Gav, I think you've provided all of the entertainment for this week! We all must appreciate it, or we'd just hit delete.

I remember something from a class waaaay back in the brain housing group about wing shape improving lift or reducing drag. The Spitfire had an elliptical "planform" wing that was amazingly efficient. Slanting is necessary for supersonic flight to help with shock waves. Otherwise, yep- it ain't tactical, but it sure is cool!

The "streamlined" look didn't fare so well for trains though.... Or kitchens, either!

Posted by: PVB | September 30, 2010 9:36 PM    Report this comment

You better get on the phone and call somebody at Mossberg and set 'em straight.

Back in the '50's, in the beginning of the jet age, Cessna's small planes were made with straight vertical stabilizers. When the commercial jet airliners and Mach 1+ military jets began to show up with their swept wings and raked vertical stabilizers, somebody at the Cessna marketing department decided it would be a cool look to put a swept-back tail on a single-engine prop plane. They've had them ever since. Was it necessary? No. Did it enhance performance? No. Did it cost more? Yes. Did it actually improve sales? Yeah, 'fraid so.

So, it doesn't matter what the company is or what they make, the marketing department always controls what the manufacturing department makes, based on what the marketing department decides the consumer likes. Simple fact of business life.

So even though I think I'm right that it's silly to call a plinker tactical, and I huff & puff about it, and even though it doesn't improve performance, reliablility, durability, and it costs more, they're going to do it anyway because it sells. I may as well have ignored it and kept my mouth shut, but occasionally a moderately humorous thought misses a turn and enters my head, and I can't resist.

And thanks for the vote of confidence, lorenzo. You're so kind.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 30, 2010 9:03 PM    Report this comment

Hey Gaviota - You better get on the phone and call somebody at Mossberg and set 'em straight.

-l

Posted by: lorenzo | September 30, 2010 6:30 PM    Report this comment

Only a successful attempt is good. Otherwise it's just a lot of fruitless work.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 30, 2010 3:43 PM    Report this comment

Hey Gav - was it good for you? ;)

Posted by: PVB | September 30, 2010 2:34 PM    Report this comment

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anyone who applies the term tactical to a rimfire caliber firearm is simply attempting to perform the act of fellatio on my wallet.

Not to say it isn't neat, cool, fun, or worth the money. Not to say I wouldn't buy it.

But tactical it ain't.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 29, 2010 7:21 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In