[Bobby]

My next rimfire will be a Marlin. I plan to use for plinking, is there any real difference between the two? I like the look of the tube-fed, and the 60 is only $20 more at Academy?

 

[BUBSDAD]

I like the detachable mag on the 795. Maybe it is just me, but I hate loading tube feeders. Buy a few extra mags and keep them all full, it seems like I spend less time loading and more time shooting. jmo

 

[planeflyer21]

I went with a 795 also.

Also due to the detachable magazine. Empty or not, I don't like fiddling around near a gun's muzzle with any of my body parts.

The one I have cost a little over $100, after the mail-in-rebate. Quite the deal, when a new 10/22 is well over twice the price.

Jon

 

[Jayhawker]

The choice is easier if you've ever left those detachable magazines at home or forgot where you put them. I really like my 795, but I really prefer the permanently attached mag on the model 60.

 

[Bobby]

Thanks

 

[gb_in_tx]

At least as of a couple of years ago when I bought my model 60, the differences between the base model plain ol' vanilla model 60 like what I bought and the base model plain ol' model 795 were:

> Stock material -- the 60 has a stained hardwood stock, the 795 has a polymer stock.
> Magazine -- the 60 has a tubular magazine, the 795 has a detachable box magazine.
> Barrel length -- the 60 has a 20" barrel, the 795 has a 19" barrel.

I, for one, got started with .22lr autoloaders with an old Stevens model 87A* (Yeah, the old "Gillie") which was tube mag fed like the model 60. So, tube mags just don't bother me, for that matter I prefer them. I got a couple of SpeeDLoaders which go a long ways towards taking away the hassle of loading a .22 tube feeder. Almost as easy to load as a box mag, but nothing to forget to bring, lose or damage by dropping.

*it was like this one, except that it had a cheap-o Tasco scope on it, and it said Stevens instead of Springfield:

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8319316