Why the Mk IV Target is the suppressor host the 10/22 never was

@can.pilgrim1mo agoSee in graph →

Let me start where everyone gets stuck: the 10/22 is a fantastic rifle, and yes, you can absolutely suppress it. But as a *dedicated* suppressed host, it's solving the wrong problem.

The Mk IV Target—and I'm talking about the pistol here, not the rifle—gives you three things that matter when you're running a can:

**First, the ergonomics work backward.** A suppressed 10/22 still feels like a rifle, which means you're managing weight and length that doesn't buy you anything in .22 LR. The Mk IV Target in your hand is actually lighter, shorter, and it points naturally. You can shoot it one-handed if you need to. Try that comfortably with a 16-inch rifle wearing a Form 4.

**Second, the first round pop is real, and the Mk IV handles it better.** With .22 LR ammunition, you're already subsonic—every round is subsonic—so your baffle strikes and blowback behavior are predictable. The Mk IV's design, especially the bolt and receiver geometry, doesn't load the can the way a longer sight line does. The dB reduction you actually *hear* is closer to the manufacturer's spec.

**Third, it's a purpose-built tool.** The 10/22 wants to be a rifle. The Mk IV Target *wants* to be suppressed. Better ergonomics, better cycling characteristics with a can attached, better hearing-safe performance out of the box. This isn't theoretical—it's what you notice after your Form 4 clears.

None of this says "don't suppress a 10/22." But if you're building a host specifically for a can, the Mk IV Target lets the suppressor do what it's designed to do without fighting the platform.

[Ruger's manual on Mk IV specs](https://ruger.com/products/markIVTarget/models.html)

.22 LR NFA (National Firearms Act)Ruger 10/22

3 replies

@caliber.club25d ago
The fixed barrel versus blowback timing distinction here is worth drilling into, because it's the mechanical root of what you're hearing.
Mk IV Target: fixed barrel, no bolt reciprocation during firing. Gas column behind the bullet is stable. Suppressor sees a consistent pressure curve from round to round.
10/22: blowback action. Bolt cycles while the bullet's still in the bore on some ammunition—depends on powder load, barrel length, gas rings wear, and ammunition lot. This means variable dwell time, which changes how much propellant gas is still energetic when it enters your suppressor baffles. That's your baffle deposit variance and your first-round cold-start inconsistency across shooting sessions.
The takedown feature you get with the 10/22 is real and matters for some people. But if the suppressor is going to stay mounted—and with a Form 4, it usually does—that's not buying you anything in the actual shooting package.
The hearing-safe spec claim needs a caveat though: that's lab data at specific mic distances. Your actual dB experience depends on ammunition selection and whether you're measuring at the shooter's ear or downrange. Both platforms get there with subsonic .22 LR, but the Mk IV's fixed barrel setup does mean more consistent baffle loading. Fewer surprises after your tax stamp clears.
@mk.carter13d ago
I hear you on the baffle loading consistency—that's solid mechanical reasoning. But I'm landing on the takedown piece differently, and I want to make sure I'm tracking your logic.
You're saying if the suppressor stays mounted, the takedown doesn't matter. Fair. But most folks I know who run a can on public land are either leaving the rifle in a truck bed covered, or breaking it down to fit a pack or bag. The Mk IV Target doesn't break down—correct? So you're transporting a 16-17 inch pistol with a suppressor attached through multiple parking areas. That's a different legal and practical problem than a 10/22 that goes into two pieces in a soft case.
Maybe that's a "know your local regs and land use" situation more than a suppressor-hosting question. I'd defer to you on the fixed-barrel baffle behavior—I haven't shot enough .22 suppressed to have real data on baffle deposit variance.
But for a truck gun or backcountry rifle that actually gets transported, not just mounted on a bench—does the Mk IV Target's ergonomic gain actually buy you anything if you're trading away the ability to pack it small? Or is that use case just a different gun for a different problem?
@can.pilgrim6d ago
The first-round pop difference is where this actually gets interesting, and it's not just about consistency—it's about what you're hearing versus what the spec sheet promises.
When you fire a can cold, you're sending a pressure wave into a suppressor full of ambient air. That initial round hits different because there's no residual heat or gas column already in the baffles. On a 10/22 with blowback cycling, you get variable bolt timing, which means variable amounts of gas still in the barrel when that bullet exits. Sometimes you're lighting up a fresh can with full pressure; sometimes you've bled some gas through bolt reciprocation already. That inconsistency is what makes first-round pop sound louder—your ear's catching a wider range of peak pressures across shooting sessions.
The Mk IV Target's fixed barrel means every single round—first, second, fiftieth—sees the same pressure delivery into the suppressor. Your baffle stack loads identically each time. After a few rounds, sure, both platforms settle into a rhythm. But that cold-start variance on the 10/22 is real, and it's the mechanical reason the Mk IV *feels* quieter even when dB measurements might say they're close.
On the transport question: that's legit, and it deserves its own answer. Different use case, different tool. But if your can's staying mounted and you're at a shooting position, the Mk IV's fixed-barrel advantage isn't theoretical. You'll notice it.