Kilibreaux

Might be a good reason to get the clamp on H&K style mount as it clamps directly to the aluminum receiver. Would be nice to find someone making an aluminum version of the steel top insert.

What "upgrade parts" from rrages are you talking about? I've been to their site and many others in search of GSG specific parts so I'm interested in whatever you're getting.

Looks like a nice magazine. Now if they'll just bring it to market!

It will be interesting to discover that the "H&K" version of the .22LR MP-5 is internally identical to the GSG-522/5. I suspect Umarex is making both "branded" versions. I own an Walther branded, high-end pellet rifle that was actually manufactured by Umarex and It's an impressively built piece. I suspect the only difference between the GSG and the H&K version of the MP-5 will be those disputed exterior attributes.

The ONLY weakness I find is the steel barrel where it passes through the aluminum breechblock is a bit thin-walled. However, anyone who has ever looked at an AR-7 barrel with its aluminum or polymer exterior already knows a .22LR simply does not need a massive barrel so that alone isn't an issue. The rear sight is NOT suitable and must be replaced with a proper aperture type drum. The front sight can be left as is unless the "retrofit-kit" is inexpensive enought to justify changing it.

I own a Ruger 10/22...have for decades. I've taken it apart, modified it every which way you can and believe I have a pretty decent grasp of what makes it a great rifle. With that said, when I disassembled the GSG-522/5 for the first time I found myself marveling at how well IT is built. The receiver is thick-walled aluminum with plenty of meat to handle any .22LR round. INSIDE the bolt resides in an aluminum carrier or jacket which appears every bit as sturdy as the 10/22 receiver. The bolt is steel, with TWIN steel recoil guide rods (the Ruger only has one rather slender one) and a substantial firing pin. The ejector appears sturdy and well anchored and another thing I suspect most fail to notice and appreciate is that when the bolt is closed the ejector is shrouded, which means an ejector blowout cannot possibly be as catastrophic as on traditional .22LR rifles (10/22) with the ejector exposed. Based upon many reviews read prior to having my own GSG to examine I expected to find a thin, easily deformed receiver yet such is not the case. The cocking handle is sturdy and exits through a rather thick-walled cocking tube...to damage this will take some dedicated, intentional effort I think. The trigger group is housed inside an aluminum sub-unit, which then slips into the polymer grip housing. I see nothing "flimsy" about the trigger components. Overall I think the GSG is pretty well built for its intended purpose.

I've seen the photo showing the parts that need to be changed to "revert" the GSG-522 to GSG-5 configuration, but what I have NOT seen is any information on where and how to obtain them.

Was a time I would have said CCI Stingers, but the shortage of Stinger ammo made me take a serious look at Aguila's version, 30gr. HP or solid at 1750fps. How many people have ever pulled a Stinger bullet and weighed it only to find the 32gr LISTED weight is actually 30.5gr? Anyway, bulk pack this and that are all great for piddling around, but Stingers and Aguila are both capable of better than combat grade groups and deliver substantial kinetic energy and velocity over standard high velocity loads. I am well aware many foolishly proclaim .22LR ammo as grossly ineffective against humans, but having SEEN and treated (and body-bagged) more than my share of people hit by the ubiquitous .22LR I've BEEN a convert for a long time, but my experience has also shown me that impact speed has a lot to do with tissue destruction therefore--if stealth is not an issue I want the fastest bullet I can get. Second on my list is the fabulous Aguila 60gr subsonic load. Adding 20gr to the bullet makes up for the slower muzzle speed and helps it deliver decent killing power (read that as penetration). The 60gr subsonic is also quite accurate.

I learned to reload using the old Lee hand dies...the ones where you used a mallet to tap the cases into the sizing die, then used a decapping rod to knock out the spent primers. The Advantage to starting so basic is it kept the process slow and broke it down into clearly understood sections. The only differene between using hand dies and a powered multi-stage press is speed--the steps involved are the same. The best way to learn to load ammo is read, read, and read everything you can find on the subject. Next start with ONE cartridge and focus on that. The British .303 is actually not a bad place to start because bolt action rifles simply do not lend themselves to burning up a lot of ammo punching holes in paper or knocking around cans and such. Being a rimmed cartridge the .303 is also less sensitive to shoulder setback than rimless designs and one thing more, the .303 is a rather low-pressure cartridge by today's standards and is therefore a bit easier on the case which works in favor of the novice loader. Another decent way to start is the Lee hand press which will easily size bottleneck rifle cases but keeps the process slow, "linear" and portable. I would never advise someone new to cartridge loading to go out and buy a multistage pres because there is so much more knowledge needed to set one up properly, and safely.

The extractor is located slightly above the rim's lateral axis centerline. When the bolt is manually withdrawn the round is dragged across the one in the magazine which tends to make it hang up and not eject cleanly unless one cycles the action briskly. During firing things are very different. The .22LR's "primary" ejection is by thrust directly to the bolt face with the claw extractor acting as a secondary extraction assist. This is why the gun may extract sluggishly when manually cycled but operate flawlessly when fired. A good example of a .22LR's primary method of extraction is the Beretta (and Taurus clone) Mod 21 in .22LR caliber...the one with the tip-up barrel. Examine it closely and you will find it has no extractor but relies soley on breech thrust to get the empty shell out of the chamber and into contact with the ejector. This is the reason it uses a tip-up barrel because once chambered there is no way to extract the round by manual cycling to the barrel is designed to pivot up so the shell can be manually removed by fingernail.

The original barrel shroud was open on the inside. If one so desired, chopping the barrel or drilling ports in it would allow gas to vent into this large internal chamber--clearly a VERY easy way to make a suppressor without even having to order a part. I have also seen early GSG-5 carbine shrouds that are also open inside and am surprised this recal didn't happen years ago. My GSG-522 carbine came with a fake can that has a sleeve inside to eliminate a single large chamber surrounding the barrel, yet apparently the SD model with an even larger internal volume was not so modified before importation. The modification will surely be to add an internal sleeve that closely surrounds the barrel and reduces the benefit of drilling the barrel to create a suppressor. Of course we all know anyone who wants can easily fabricate a very nice suppressor but the BATFE's position is more along the lines of not wanting the gun to be so easily converted straight out of the box.

A complete teardown of my GSG-522 can comparing it with photos of the GSG-5 reveals this to be true. Additionally the supplied user manual is for the GSG-5 with a sticker placed over the "5" to change it to GSG-522. Inside the manual all the photos are of the GSG-5.

GSG has lowered the price on the -522 which I can assure you DOES matter. I got onto the GSG because I saw a Big-5 ad for the S&W M&P 15-22 and decided to check the GSG-5 against the "sale price" of the S&W. Here in California expect to pay about $100 less for the GSG-522 than the Smith and even more for the Colt-Umarex. At $351 the GSG is only about $100 more than a Ruger 10/22 (not on sale) and considering the differences I'd say that's a good value.

I have the GSG-522 carbine and the picatinny rail is tight. The ABS top insert fits into grooves in the aluminum receiver halves and would be prone to movement though the rail appears to contact the aluminum receiver rather than just the plastic portion. This means that when the two mounting screws are snugged down the rail should be pretty solid but I suppose, depending on the weight of what is attached the rail could flex somewhat. The first and simplest approach might be to add a few strips of tap to the underside of the rail to form a spacer and allow the rail to be snugged down to the aluminum portion of the receiver. Another option might be to remove the rail and go to one of the many clamp-on style picatinny rails as these use the bosses on the aluminum receiver

As it happens I am the proud owner of the "new" GSG-522 here in central California. Other than cosmetic changes it is the same gun as the GSG-5, so much so the owners manual is for the original GSG-5 with a "522" sticker over the original number 5. Even better is the price...I shopped it through Davidson's Gallery of Guns and found it at a pawn shop in Visalia for $351! The basic gun is unchanged. The front and rear sight are different, as is the grip, the cocking handle, and mag release, but still perfectly functional. I would prefer the original rear aperture sight over this one with the long "U" channels and I have found them online for around $30. The front sight is okay as is...twin uprights with the same replaceable front post. The cocking handle is larger and I'm not sure it isn't better, same with the magazine release. It does have this little sling hook on the front of the trigger guard which some will like and others not because it isn't traditional but it's easy enough to remove with a dremel if so desired. Here in Kali we get the 10 round mag which IS more than the addition of external block panels. The panels are glued to a couple of internal blocks and the spring is shorter than a non-restricted mag.

I'm new to this board but I've been into .22's since childhood. I've spent years building tactical versions of the 10/22 and recently took the jump and bought a GSG-522 carbine. All I can say is WOW, the GSG is what I've been trying to build all these years! ;D