The "upgrade" is ugly and adds no additional functionality to the 10-22.

If you're interested in a poorly built, plastic-stocked fashion statement that's fine. I wouldn't use one of those for pay. Remington already makes a fine tactical rifle ready for the short action cartridges of the .308 kind. A Model 700 will never be a "tactical" rifle, no matter how many picatinny rails and how much black resin you use casting the stock. You can have a road warrier tatoo as well and a Recondo badge embossed into the buttstock and it will never be a tactical rifle.

It's a fashion statement for people who are led by the nose by the fashion-side of firearms -- the craptactical people and the gadgetheads.

If your tactics are plinking cans it's a trendy gadget.
If you are looking for a battle rifle go pick up a Springfield Armory Socom. Enough caliber, proven reliable, forced back into service when the toy co. specials wouldn't do the job. When you are talking ranges greater than the effective for that rifle, 99% of the shooters I've met are the weak link not the rifle. If you are capable of those distances, reliably, then go talk to Les Baer.

Normaly I'd stasrt to argue here but I have never understood spending that kind of money on a 22. A 10/22 at that, The 10/22 I had was the bigest piece of junk to ever pass through my safe. I'll stick with my marlin model 60.

My 10/22 is extremely accurate too, I usually set up empty shotgun shells at 75 yards and use them as targets, trying to hit the brass. And it has never had any feeding problems even though I normally shoot the cheapest brick of ammo I can find. If you want a piece of crap get a Rem 597... and really what is the point of this stock? I don't get it.