Good "beginner" rifle

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by dah328

And don't tell globetrotter you own a firearm.

I think that it is an exceptionally good idea for connie to have a firearm. darwinism and all that

 

[Nil]

Originally Posted by suited

Get a 10/22 if you want to plink at the range. The only downside here is that it might be a little boring to shoot.

This is why the Ruger is a much better option than the CZ. When you get a little bored putting carefully aimed holes into a target, slap a 25 round magazine in it and have a little rapid fire fun.

 

[GQgeek]

First conne gets a job, and now he's gonna start shooting. He's becoming a republican. Bout time he grew up! Well, he's gotta start making his own lunches before i give him too much credit.

 

[ms244]

For realz yo?

I have an M39, its only advantage over a regular nagant is its shorter and handier to carry and beat people with (which you need to do, since they never really issued a bayonet).

Its still heavy, kicks like a mule, uses corrosive ammo and not all that accurate. A No4 or SMLE Enfield would be a better choice I think.

Connie, just get yourself an AR15 with a 22 conversion kit and be over with it.

 

[BDC2823]

I agree with the .22 recommendations. I have a Turkish Mauser which is similar to a Mosin Nagant and it is fun for about 5 rounds. After that, my shoulder just hurts like hell from the recoil. I don't personally have a .22 long rifle, but whenever I go shooting with my buddy, I always end up shooting his .22's much more than anything else. They are just fun to shoot and the ammo is dirt cheap.

 

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by Kyoung05

I'd suggest either the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 (semi-auto)

Yup.

 

[Kyoung05]

Originally Posted by ms244

For realz yo?

I have an M39, its only advantage over a regular nagant is its shorter and handier to carry and beat people with (which you need to do, since they never really issued a bayonet).

Its still heavy, kicks like a mule, uses corrosive ammo and not all that accurate. A No4 or SMLE Enfield would be a better choice I think.

Connie, just get yourself an AR15 with a 22 conversion kit and be over with it.

Are you sure you don't have an m38? M39s were Russian rifles captured/ refinished by the Finnish. The fit and finish is much better than their Russian counterparts, and their accuracy is about on par with a Swiss k31. The m38 on the other hand is just a bayonet-less carbine version of the 91/30.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Maybe a Winchester M70 Sharpshooter with Robar camo finish.

 

[ms244]

Originally Posted by Kyoung05

Are you sure you don't have an m38? M39s were Russian rifles captured/ refinished by the Finnish. The fit and finish is much better than their Russian counterparts, and their accuracy is about on par with a Swiss k31. The m38 on the other hand is just a bayonet-less carbine version of the 91/30.
The 'for realz' was about the a queen who worships corrupt democrats wanting to buy a gun. Rifle is definitely a Finn, I don't think they are that rare. Maybe the soviet guns are really that bad, or I'm expecting a lot more out of it, but the sights are pretty crappy and the trigger isn't all much better. The action isn't very easy to work (like say an Enfield or Mauser). Its not too bad on the range (other then the kicking like a mule part) but if I had to fend off hoards of Nazis or Communists or Huns or the Chinese, I would look for some other options. Also, the 7.5 swiss rounds are generally pretty high quality. The stuff I got came in a (literally) gigantic tin can that I had to use a hammer and chisel to open. Inside it had little bundles of steel cased bullets wrapped in paper with twine. I'm pretty sure an army of babushkas sat in some soulless factory doing this year round decade after decade, sucking in their children into the same Dickensian abyss (instead of living like normal people in the West). The can was marked as made in Bulgaria in 1979. The NATO battle packs of the same era were PVC sleeves you can cut open with a knife. Based on this difference alone, I would say NATO would have won the Westphalia plain. http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/f..._nagantm39.asp

Same as this, I don't have the bayonet but I do have a real Finnish Puko knife (it hangs on the side of my toolbox).

http://www.floridamilitarysupply.com...ype=T&id=16169 Connie should just bite the bullet and get a normal AR15 (as illustrated below)

 

[uNiCoRnPriNcEsSx]

Originally Posted by Nil

This is why the Ruger is a much better option than the CZ. When you get a little bored putting carefully aimed holes into a target, slap a 25 round magazine in it and have a little rapid fire fun.
personally, i prefer the bolt action. not only does it feel good, but forces you to go through all 8 steps to get an accurate shot, each and every time. and re: costs, accurized rifles start from 5k+, and are expensive to feed. building an AR-15 will cost at the very least $700 for a ****** one, $1.3k for one reliable enough to kill zombies with shud google ever turn into umbrella corp. 5.56/.223 is an expensive round to buy. i think he shud start with an .22lr, and move to the big guns when he's a) sure he likes shooting (but which republican doesnt?) b) doesn't miss (only fgts do unless they're part of the pink pistols)

 

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by dah328

I would say that the Mosin Nagant is more of a novelty rifle. I don't think it's especially fun to shoot or hunt with.

If you're intending to shoot mostly at a range, I would seriously consider a .22 rifle such as the Ruger 10/22 especially since ammo has gone way up in price over the past couple years, so shooting larger calibers can get expensive. If you think might occasionally get a chance to go hunting, borrow a hunting rifle from someone in those cases. There's no sense in buying a hunting rifle if the majority of your shooting will be done at a range. And don't tell globetrotter you own a firearm.

This. They are cheap to buy and to fire (something which people tend to overlook) and it is plenty of gun to learn on. If you decide you actually like the experience move up from there.
Oh, and despite what people will tell you and .22 is big enough to hunt with if in the unlikely event you actually find your self so doing.

p.s.

give me a ******* break cunny, you'll never follow through with this but consider your attention whoring needs filled for another night.

 

[Dakota rube]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I think that it is an exceptionally good idea for connie to have a firearm. darwinism and all that

I'm in complete agreement with you, globe.

 

[edinatlanta]

lol.

 

[csoukoulis]

Originally Posted by Kyoung05

First off, a mosin-nagant is a terrible choice (unless we're talking about the rare Finnish M39). It is inaccurate, has a terrible trigger, uses corrosive ammo, and packs a hell of a lot of recoil. If you're relatively new to shooting, this is definitely not the rifle you want to start off with. Granted, it is cheap, and ammo for it is cheap too - about the only redeeming qualities, really. After you've been shooting for a while, and if you decide to get into collecting WWII-era weapons, the mosin-nagant might be a nice pick up, but not now.

Having said that, assuming you actually want to learn how to shoot (rather than just blasting rounds down range), I'd highly suggest a rifle chambered in .22LR. It's a very small caliber round, no recoil, is very cheap, and very accurate. Granted, a .22LR won't really "impress" anyone, it doesn't make a loud "bang" when you fire it, and is about the "weakest" caliber round there is. However, if you actually want to learn to shoot, none of those things should matter. I'd suggest either the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 (semi-auto), or a bolt-action CZ 452/453. I've owned both, and ended up keeping the CZ.

The Ruger will be cheaper up-front, but the trigger won't be as good, nor will it be as accurate. But, it is semi-auto, dead-reliable, reasonably accurate, and will last you a lifetime. The biggest upside to the Ruger is that it is highly modifiable - you can literally upgrade every single component in the rifle (assuming you are willing to spend $1,000+ upgrading a $200 rifle) making it competition-level accurate.

The CZ, on the other hand, is a bolt-action, meaning you have to work the bolt before every shot. The upside is that it is VERY accurate out of the box, has a great trigger, and amazing build quality for the price. There aren't really a whole lot of modifications for it, so it's something you're going to just shoot as-is. Even so, it will be more accurate than you are for a very long time (meaning, if you aren't shooting well, it's you, not the rifle).

Something else you may want to consider is whether you want to shoot with optics, i.e. a scope, or with iron-sights. If you decide to go with optics, either the Ruger or CZ would work (although you'll need to buy scope rings and mounts). On the other hand, if you decide to go with iron-sights, I'd suggest getting one of the CZ models that comes with iron-sights, which are some of the best iron-sights on a rifle (the Ruger can be had with iron-sights too, but compared to the CZ, they're terrible).

OP, this is EXCELLENT advice. CZ makes a great .22 that is dead nuts accurate. I have a Savage MK2 bolt action chambered in .22 and i LOVE shooting it, and the accu-trigger is ****.

 

[GQgeek]

On a serious note, bolt action can be fun, as is shooting for distance. I go shooting with an ex-SAS guy in HS every friday. It was a shitload of fun.