The rifle is a legend and superbly made, but not for the high power scopes we use today. There truly are a few downsides to the 52 worth mentioning.
First, mounting a scope to these is awkward. I leave receivers as originally made and that means using the barrel’s two rear base holes to mount a cantilevered picatinny rail running backward over the receiver without being connected to it. This is a compromised and inherently weak setup that turns the scope into a torque wrench against the single, small contact surface and requires a lifetime of delicate treatment.
Second, the action screws are frustratingly incompatible with anything currently made, should you lose one or want to correct someone’s damage to the slot. Here again one practice is to bore and retap but that is akin to not just cleaning, but sandblasting one’s coin collection, in my mind, making it more convenient but permanently uncollectible. Original replacement screws must be searched out.
Third, compared to the 40-X footprint, there are not readily accessible backup target stocks. Far fewer 40-X’s were made than 52’s, but they fit any 700 opening. They have a protruding screw head on the bottom of the action but it is small enough so as to simply modify any regular 40-X stock, with a dremel.
I like to shoot these very old guns in matches. If the 52 could outshoot the 40-X, I’d say these issues could all be overlooked, but my two 52’s don’t shoot smaller, at least within my limited use of them so far. If the 52 is going to be the only vintage, top quality .22 in the collection, it would be fully appreciated, but the 40-X is also vintage, fits the same target rifle role, and if you already have one, is almost guaranteed to remain your favorite and the one that is always picked for matches.