Good "beginner" rifle

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

I'm surprised at your consideration of such a gift. But you would be a good type of parent to teach a child about shooting, I think.





~ H

I am nothing if not a hypocrite - most of my criticism of gun ownership is about people I don't trust owning guns. I figure that there is a chance my son (and girls) will use a gun at one point of another in his life, so I might as well manage their education in something that I know a lot about. I am not sure yet is 10 will be the year, but I am sure that it will happen, and it might as well happen at 10 as at 17.

 

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Mag, as in .22 WMR (the rimfire?). Better, but still irresponsible. So you always mean WMR? There are a lot of .22 caliber cartridges, for heaven's sake. Yeah, I know some people who shot deer with a .22 Hornet, and others who used .222, .223, and a Sako in .222 Magnum. There is always a margin of error when hunting; quarry moves suddenly, there's a branch you didn't see, you jump, whatever -- while you can hunt a deer with various .22s, the problem is that you are reducing the margin to a miniscule amount. A hunter owes his game more respect than allowing that extra risk. And just because many people have "use .22 for deer" doesn't make it right -- which is why you should doubly not be recommending that others do so.



Actually, he gets points deducted for both. Shooting a rifle (or any caliber) up into the air is pretty damned irresponsible unless the next two miles of land is yours, or the guy next to you owns it. And if he does, it's still disrespectful to the animal.

One facepalm is not enough. That's just callous and cruel. I've broken a quail's neck, too, but I winged it and owed it dispatch as quickly as possible due to my bad shot. I wouldn't do it just because I could, and damn, well, the dog already cornered it.





Nothing.

~ H

Hey Huntsman, get your head out of your ass and off of the range.

You and I are coming from completely different backgrounds and experiences. Shooting a gun in the air is not always irresponsible. It really depends on where you are, what angle you are shooting, and what is behind your range of fire.

This took place in the country and while we did not own 2 miles in every direction we did own a good distance and the land was totally empty. Guess what? I used to go driving out there as well when I was well under the driving age. In some directions you could go 50-100 miles and never see a sign of civilization. It's a very different situation than what you're used to.

I was not blasting away towards people's homes.

As for being "callous and cruel," again, go *************.

I've been called a lot of things but callous and cruel is not among them. Particularly where animals are concerned. I was well impressed with my dog and took advantage. What makes you think we killed it "just because we could?"

As for all the sanctimonious preaching about "owing a duty of respect to your prey" true but misdirected. Neither myself nor the friends I have that hunt with a .22 are cruel or callous and in fact have a deep respect and relationship with the natural world.

I already said the .22 is not the ideal deer rifle, my mentioning that one could take a deer with it was not a recommendation but a response to the statement that a .22 could not kill anything larger than a squirrel.

I know this b/c I have respect for animals and was raised with said respect. Long before organic free range meat was widely and (somewhat) cheaply available in the market my family and many of our friends raised a few animals for slaughter. We did this not to be "callous and cruel" but rather just the opposite. By raising and killing some of our own meat we ensured the animal a good life and a clean death. Much as I ensured the birds I shot or the one bird my brother and I killed by hand a quick death after a good, free life. We never needed anything larger than a .22 (or in one case a .223) to put down anything.
Nobody I know is out there shooting deer in the gut and then hopping to find them two days later after they bled to death or an infection gets them, nor are we randomly stomping on fuzzy little bunnies and fluffy ducks.

Lastly, if you don't like being told to "go *************" or "pull your head out of your ass" and thinks it drags down the tone, I don't being treated like an irresponsible, bloodthirsty psycho that needs to be lectured to about respect for the natural world.

 

[Huntsman]

I'm sorry if I am mis-casting your comments, NorCal, but I am reacting to how they are coming across (and I am not the only one).

Originally Posted by NorCal

You can hunt all manner of thing with a 22lr. Rabbits and other small mammals would be the most appropriate but you can hunt birds and deer as well. A .22 can kill the holy hell out of just about anything and it is considered kind of the ultimate country/survival rifle. A shotgun is going to be better for birds and a .30-06, .308 or other larger riffle is going to be able to kill larger deer easier but a .22 is the most versatile. PArt of of the inevitable difference of opinion is that people, especially on boards like SF, tend to be gear nerds who imagine getting all kitted out for one purpose with every bit of gear and item you might need. So hunting ducks with a .22 will sound crazy. But if you can't afford a different rifle for every animal or just more likely if you are an opportunist hunter or like how light, simple, unassuming, and cheap to shoot it is, a .22 is just fine.

Originally Posted by NorCal

I already said the .22 is not the ideal deer rifle, my mentioning that one could take a deer with it was not a recommendation but a response to the statement that a .22 could not kill anything larger than a squirrel.
This is at the very least a put-down of people who might suggest that there are different firearms that are appropriate for different situations -- you called them "gear heads." Geez, really -- a shotgun for birds, mainstream centerfire rife for mammals is not being a gear nerd. Heck, man, you said "if you are an opportunist hunter OR just like how light, simple, unassuming and cheap to shoot it is, a .22 is just fine." That really sounds like more than an assertion that it's possible to use a .22, it sounds like a recommendation.

Originally Posted by NorCal

You and I are coming from completely different backgrounds and experiences. Shooting a gun in the air is not always irresponsible. It really depends on where you are, what angle you are shooting, and what is behind your range of fire. This took place in the country and while we did not own 2 miles in every direction we did own a good distance and the land was totally empty. Guess what? I used to go driving out there as well when I was well under the driving age. In some directions you could go 50-100 miles and never see a sign of civilization. It's a very different situation than what you're used to. I was not blasting away towards people's homes.
I grant you, if you have enough knowledge about the space, I shouldn't be overly critical. My apologies. I did not, however, intimate that you were blasting towards people's homes, which would really be reckless -- just the unknown. I still think it's improper, but at least subject to debate. I really don't care about driving in the same way; the use of firearms and their ownership is something for which I expect a higher standard of care despite apparent safety.

Originally Posted by NorCal

As for being "callous and cruel," again, go *************. I've been called a lot of things but callous and cruel is not among them. Particularly where animals are concerned. I was well impressed with my dog and took advantage. What makes you think we killed it "just because we could?"
Again, my apologies. Because of the context of "winning back points," and even your comments here, that "you took advantage" does seem like it was "because you could." No other reasons for doing that were asserted other than ability and your dog having cornered the duck (that act creating the possibility). What other conclusion was I supposed to have drawn?

Originally Posted by NorCal

Nobody I know is out there shooting deer in the gut and then hopping to find them two days later after they bled to death or an infection gets them, nor are we randomly stomping on fuzzy little bunnies and fluffy ducks.
I didn't imply that. My concern about hunting mammals with .22s was that you are reducing the margin for error drastically and not in the animal's favor. I think that doing so does a disservice to the animal and the hunting community at large. I did not suggest that hunting with a .22 was wanton cruelty.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Lastly, if you don't like being told to "go *************" or "pull your head out of your ass" and thinks it drags down the tone, I don't being treated like an irresponsible, bloodthirsty psycho that needs to be lectured to about respect for the natural world.
I don't. All I know about you is what you write. And it seemed pretty clear that you were recommneding a .22 as a caliber that may be a "fine" choice for deer. It also seemed pretty clear that you were touting, with bravado, snapping a duck's neck when you didn't seem to be under any imperative to do so (I realize there may be little difference with shooting a duck). But you'll note that I didn't jump to extreme conclusions, but merely criticised your actions as you chose to present them.

Originally Posted by NorCal

I know this b/c I have respect for animals and was raised with said respect. Long before organic free range meat was widely and (somewhat) cheaply available in the market my family and many of our friends raised a few animals for slaughter. We did this not to be "callous and cruel" but rather just the opposite. By raising and killing some of our own meat we ensured the animal a good life and a clean death. Much as I ensured the birds I shot or the one bird my brother and I killed by hand a quick death after a good, free life. We never needed anything larger than a .22 (or in one case a .223) to put down anything.
This is a level of understanding that I respect and appreciate, but find hard to square with your earlier comments. I really do. I have no inherent dislike for you; I've never met you. And further, I don't even have any desire to get you upset, so I will refrain from criticising your opinions in this (or similar) matters except in the mildest fashion so that I won't be seen as being in tacit agreement (should that concern arise; it might not). ~ H

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I figure that there is a chance my son (and girls) will use a gun at one point of another in his life, so I might as well manage their education in something that I know a lot about. I am not sure yet is 10 will be the year, but I am sure that it will happen, and it might as well happen at 10 as at 17.

IIRC, 10 is like 4th grade?

I started freshman year of high school, age 14 (almost 15) I guess. A late bloomer among my peers.

I think 10 to 12 is a fine age to start on a .22LR and, if shooting at an outdoor range, I would suggest some sort of reactive target; either a collection of simple plastic bottles and aluminum cans to start with or a spinning silhouette target if you want something fancy:

 

[globetrotter]

yes, 10 is 4rth grade. that looks cool. I am thinking of an indoor range, though - I want to do a rifle safety course with him, and then shoot someplace that is a controlled environment. that is what I am thinking about - them, maybe, when he is older, we could do some other shooting or not.

 

[x26]

I reccomend:

Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine, Model 6721

OR

Colt M4 Commando is the most compact of the Colt 5.56mm Family of Weapons featuring a 4-position sliding buttstock and an 11.5" (29.2 cm) long barrel. The M4 Commando is famous for its lightweight, ease of handling, accuracy and reliability, qualities that make it a valid choice for a wide variety of law enforcement applications. In fact, the Colt M4 Commando is often chosen over smaller, less powerful sub-machine guns, allowing for full 5.56mm power and accuracy, in a sub-machine gun size weapon

 

[x26]

 

[Surfrider]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

I would suggest some sort of reactive target; either a collection of simple plastic bottles and aluminum cans to start with or a spinning silhouette target if you want something fancy:

This. I started to teach my little cousin how to shoot when he was seven. At nine, we moved up to a .22lr. Having a variety of reactive targets - including glass bottles filled with water!

- was a great way to keep his interest and motivation high. The ultimate motivator, however, was the exploding target. I made my own, but you can buy 'em too. Because the payoff for hitting one of those targets was so great, I wanted to make sure that it was an infrequent event that he really had to work for, so I made the bullseye on those targets very small. It took him a while, but man, you should have see the ear-to-ear grin on his face the first time he hit one; it was probably about as big as mine.

 

[xchen]

My ideal beginner rifle is a Bushmaster AR-15. I need to re-plan my life around getting one of those. I suppose I should begin saving immediately.

 

[milosz]

There are better deals out there than Bushmaster. They made their bones as one of the few ban-era AR makers, but they've been widely surpassed since the AWB ended.

 

[gladhands]

The M-16A2 is an excellent beginner rifle, and I know a place where they're giving them away for free.

 

[CHenry]



I'd like to pick up a rifle this year. I won't be doing much (if any) hunting, this will be primarily for use at the shooting range. One of my gun-savvy friends recommended a Mosin Nagant. A bolt-action sounds good, but I don't know all that much about rifles. Any recommendations? The cheaper the better.

Don't get a Moisin Nagant. That rifle does not meet your needs. The ones for sale now are cheap largely because they are in poor condition and shoot an obscure cartridge. I agree with the recommendation of a CZ (Model 455, IIRC) in .22 LR. These are very accurate and well made rifles. If you want to go upscale, then a Cooper is a good choice, Model 57. If you want a rifle that shoots a little longer than .22LR, you might try either a .17 HMR or a .223 or a .204. CZ makes those too.

 

[bringusingoodale]

Cool bump.

So what did you get, if anything/

 

[NorCal]



Cool bump.
So what did you get, if anything/

Blue balls, he never was able to shoot his rifle off.