Input from hunters welcome / needed

[westvirginia]

Jimmy's given you great advice above, and he certainly knows more about hunting than I do. I'll just make a couple points:

 

1) I would absolutely get a rimfire rifle of some kind fairly soon. As long as the ranges are <100 yards the shotgun with slugs will serve as a deer rifle in the immediate future. And right now I'd go with a standard .22 LR - I love the .17 HMR, but the .22 is still the king of that heap and will be for a long while yet.

 

2) Concentrate on learning to shoot. I have a .22 pistol that I've put so much time in with I'd be fairly comfy making any shot I had to with it (within 150 yards or so). If I HAD to, I'd have no problem using it to get a deer or a zombie, because I know I could put one in the eye at that range. When you aren't dealing with smoothbores (shotguns), shot placement is key. If you can put one in the eye, ballistics don't much matter.

 

3) After you have the honest opinion that you're good with the .22, you'll probably have started forming your own opinions on what you like, what works for you, etc. I might wait until then to go for the center-fire rifle. Personally unless you anticipate shooting at ranges of >300 yards, I wouldn't touch any magnum, belted or otherwise. I'd stick with proven cartridges that are easily found anywhere - .243, .270, 7mm mauser, .308, .30-06 or maybe .45-70 if you really want to shoot it a bunch. Probably the .270 or .308 will be the best "all-around" cartridges of the bunch. But more important is an action/barrel-length/stock you are comfy with.

 

4) Practice, practice, practice!

[polksalet]

If you buy this in .308 you will never regret it. You can get it for 50 dolla less at your local wal-mart. The are incredibly accurate, cheap, and powerful enough to hunt anything short of grizzly. I have one almost identical and I can tell you that no one on this board wants to have a shooting competition against it. It just depends on what you want to spend. You can get a much fancier gun for a lot more moeny but if you want pure performance this is pretty much te apex.

 

http://www.floridagunworks.com/Merchant2/m...REARMS+R+BAR+SA

[muck]

It sounds like I should prioritize as follows, and just go down the list as far as my budget will carry me?

 

1) More ammo for shotgun (10% slugs; 10% goose/turkey load; 30% duck/pheasant load; 50% cheap stuff for practice) = $200 - 500

2) Rifle with scope = $800 - 1500

3) Ammo for rifle (80% cheap stuff for practice; 20% good stuff for hunting) = $200 - 500

4) .22 plinker = $200 (scope adds $200)

5) Ammo for the .22 = $100 - 200 (90% cheap stuff for practice)

6) Concealable auto pistol = $500 - 1000 (does the 1911 fit this bill?)

7) Ammo for auto pistol = $100 - 300 (80% cheap stuff for practice)

8) Revolver = $500 - 1000

9) Ammo for the revolver = $100 - 300 (80% cheap stuff for practice)

10) Camo gear, boots and other stuff, plus more ammo = a kajillion, depending

 

Is this budget about right? Or am I light on the $$s on guns or ammo (or both)?

 

Should I try to get a pistol or revolver in a .22 gauge (I saw that Walther makes one) in order to save on having to get another type of ammo?

 

I don't want to do something I wish I hadn't by getting a lesser gun in order to be able to swing more boxes / cases of shells ... but, keep thinking that if I buy a top-notch gun and not enough ammo, the better quality gun won't do me much good. And yes, I'm fully aware that I can always go buy more ammo and that it's hard to upgrade a gun that, while solid, just isn't 'all that'...

 

Do I go get a great rifle if that means I can't swing a .22 or a pistol / revolver? Or, do I just focus on getting the best guns I can and figure out the ammo situation later? I'm a little stuck on figuring out how to split the budget between "buying ammo in case Obama makes the prices jump 500%" to "buying a couple of guns that should last my lifetime" (which was my thought on the SBE II, fwiw). Thoughts?

 

The "$3000 - 4000 nice guns and nearly no ammo" budget would (maybe) look something like this:

1) Rifle and scope = $1200 - 1800

2) .22 rifle = $200 - 400 (with scope?)

3) Concealable pistol / revolver = $800 - 1200

4) Other pistol / revolver = $800 - 1200

5) $100 of shells for the shotgun

5) $100 of rounds for the rifle

6) $50 of cheap rounds for the .22

7) $50 of rounds for the pistol / revolver

 

Whereas the "$3000 - 4000 good guns and lots of ammo" budget would (maybe) look someting like this:

1) Shells for the shotgun = $600 - 1000

2) Rifle and scope = $600 - 1000

3) Rifle shells = $600 - 1000

4) .22 rifle = $200 (no scope)

5) .22 ammo = $200 - 400

6) Concealable revolver / pistol = $500 - 800

7) Ammo for the revolver / pistol = $100 - 200

 

...so, maybe something in between the two would be if I used something like this for my shopping list (this is more for $$s, not necessarily the guns to buy)???

1) $250 for a case of your suggested goose loads - 250 shells

2) $180 for a case of your suggested duck loads - 250 shells

3) $160 for a case of your suggested pheasant loads - 250 shells

4) $200 for five boxes of your suggested turkey loads - 50 shells

5) $50 for five boxes of your suggested defense loads - 100 shells

6) $200 for three cases of some shells for clays - 750 shells

 

...$1,040, plus tax...

 

7) $1400 for your Sako rifle ... or equivalent

8) $400 (est) for a good scope

8) $80 for two boxes of this stuff for when its time to bring down the deer - 40 loads

9) $190 for two cases of this - 200 loads

10) $190 for two cases of this - 200 loads

 

...$3300...plus tax / etc...

 

11) $250 for Ruger .22

12) $200 for three big ol boxes of your suggested load for the .22LR - 1500 shells

 

...$3750, plus tax/etc ...

 

13a) $800 for Super Red Hawk w/ badass 9.5 inch barrel

13b) $800 for used Kimber 1911

13c) $800 for Glock 20C

14) $450 for ammo for the pistol / revolver (approx. $1 / shot)

 

... $5000, plus tax/etc...

[Jimmy Neutron]

Your budget looks pretty good in either case, Muck. The only change I would suggest is adding more to the ammo budget. You'll be surprised how quickly it goes if you get serious about practice. Really beef up your .22 ammo budget - it's good, cheap practice.

 

Unless you plan on doing a ton of goose hunting, a case is probably overkill. It probably takes me 5 years to shoot a case of goose loads and I do a considerable amount of waterfowl hunting.

 

You can get a nice 1911 for less than a grand, but your choices will be limited. Springfield and Kimber both offer entry level, modern style 1911s for $800-900. You can also get a great little Springfield GI model for less than $500, but it lacks some of the modern bells and whistles most shooters appreciate like a beavertail style grip safety, extended thumb safety and much better sights.

 

A .22 pistol would be a great addition to your growing collection. Like WV said, they can be extremely accurate and they're a nice change of pace to long arms. I have a Browning Buckmark. A good buddy of mine has a Ruger Mark III - both are accurate and reliable. The Browning has a better trigger and better sights.

 

If you're looking to trim the budget, consider Polks advice on the Savage rifle. I don't know how they do it, but they make one accurate rifle for quite a bit less than the competition. They are generally not fitted quite as nicely or as smooth as some of the others I mentioned, but they are reliable, accurate rifles. I would shy away from the combo deals Savage offers - the scopes are sub-par. If you go the Savage route, still top that bad boy with quality glass. You won't be sorry.

[idahov]

I just picked up a Rock Island 1911 and can attest that it is a good shooter. I'd go for the tactical version with all the upgrades that people tend to like. You can find these for $400-$500. Lifetime warranty.

[westvirginia]

I just picked up a Rock Island 1911 and can attest that it is a good shooter. I'd go for the tactical version with all the upgrades that people tend to like. You can find these for $400-$500. Lifetime warranty.

 

You know, that's probably not a terrible idea. I've heard the quality has been a little uneven, but the company has been standing behind them if you get a lemon. They won't be a tack driver, but they'll have things like the beavertail/commander hammer and a better trigger.

[Perchoutofwater]

Muck,

 

Even if you skimp on the rifle don't skimp on the optics. Personally I wouldn't skimp on either. I think you are probably looking at $1,200 to $1,500 for the two combined. I would probably buy a pistol / revolver prior to buying a .22. Assuming you want the pistol / revolver for protection and not fun, I'd suggest a revolver as you don't seem to be too gun savvy, and revolvers are easier to deal with, as you don't have to rack them and they don't jamb. You can get a decent carry gun like a S&W J Frame for under $500 new and probably for around $350 or so used if you look hard enough.

[westvirginia]

Your budget looks pretty good in either case, Muck. The only change I would suggest is adding more to the ammo budget. You'll be surprised how quickly it goes if you get serious about practice. Really beef up your .22 ammo budget - it's good, cheap practice.

 

Unless you plan on doing a ton of goose hunting, a case is probably overkill. It probably takes me 5 years to shoot a case of goose loads and I do a considerable amount of waterfowl hunting.

 

You can get a nice 1911 for less than a grand, but your choices will be limited. Springfield and Kimber both offer entry level, modern style 1911s for $800-900. You can also get a great little Springfield GI model for less than $500, but it lacks some of the modern bells and whistles most shooters appreciate like a beavertail style grip safety, extended thumb safety and much better sights.

 

A .22 pistol would be a great addition to your growing collection. Like WV said, they can be extremely accurate and they're a nice change of pace to long arms. I have a Browning Buckmark. A good buddy of mine has a Ruger Mark III - both are accurate and reliable. The Browning has a better trigger and better sights.

 

If you're looking to trim the budget, consider Polks advice on the Savage rifle. I don't know how they do it, but they make one accurate rifle for quite a bit less than the competition. They are generally not fitted quite as nicely or as smooth as some of the others I mentioned, but they are reliable, accurate rifles. I would shy away from the combo deals Savage offers - the scopes are sub-par. If you go the Savage route, still top that bad boy with quality glass. You won't be sorry.

 

+1, but I would definitely get the Savage. It will be much less refined than the Sako, but it will be a rifle you can start with and is VERY accurate. Once you get to the point where you'd start collecting or become more of an aficionado vs. utilitarian user, you'll be able to get most of your money back on it if you need to trade up.

 

I'd also make my .22 rifle a priority. And you don't need to spend more than about $50-$75 on a .22 scope. A good 4X Simmons is what I use on .22's. They don't produce recoil and I've never had a problem with them. They are at the better end of the cheaper scopes, but they are very clear to my eye.

[muck]

...all good stuff...

 

Keep it coming!

[polksalet]

...all good stuff...

 

Keep it coming!

 

personally I think you are going down the wrong track on the rifle. You have determined that cost has something to do with quality and accuracy. If you spend over $500 there will be zero gain in rifle quality. Once upon a time some companies has superior manufacturing technology and better steels and really did produce a superior product. This is no longer the case. But because comapnies named Tikka, Sako, Anschutz, Weatherby, et. al. were knon as being superior many people still suppose them to be. Case in point a buddy of mine bought a gun from these guys http://www.stevensaccuracy.com/ last year. His is a .257 Weatherby built on a Remington 700 action. He has 3k in the rifle itself and a grand in the scope. Don't misunderstand me, it is a fine gun. But the groups it shoots are basically identical to what I shoot through my .308. When you factor in the cost difference of basically $3500 you could buy two benelli's, a 1911, and a couple .22 rifles as well as the rifle that performs equally. If cost is not facot ri recommend you buy a rifle from A-Square. They are one of the few compnaies that actually produce a superior product. If you are going to buy a Browning, well I can't recommend a poorer product for the money. Tikka's are nice as are Sako but none approach the QC levels of an A-square.

[Jimmy Neutron]

personally I think you are going down the wrong track on the rifle. You have determined that cost has something to do with quality and accuracy. If you spend over $500 there will be zero gain in rifle quality. Once upon a time some companies has superior manufacturing technology and better steels and really did produce a superior product. This is no longer the case. But because comapnies named Tikka, Sako, Anschutz, Weatherby, et. al. were knon as being superior many people still suppose them to be. Case in point a buddy of mine bought a gun from these guys http://www.stevensaccuracy.com/ last year. His is a .257 Weatherby built on a Remington 700 action. He has 3k in the rifle itself and a grand in the scope. Don't misunderstand me, it is a fine gun. But the groups it shoots are basically identical to what I shoot through my .308. When you factor in the cost difference of basically $3500 you could buy two benelli's, a 1911, and a couple .22 rifles as well as the rifle that performs equally. If cost is not facot ri recommend you buy a rifle from A-Square. They are one of the few compnaies that actually produce a superior product. If you are going to buy a Browning, well I can't recommend a poorer product for the money. Tikka's are nice as are Sako but none approach the QC levels of an A-square.

 

This is largely crazy talk.

 

Some rifle designs and manufacturers are inherently better than others. While I have a great deal of respect for Savage products (my .17 HMR is a Savagean I love it), they are not the mechanical equal of some other rifles. USMC snipers do not use Savage actions to base their uber high-end rifles upon and I suspect there is a valid reason for it. You'll see higher end rifles at any serious bench-shooting competiton because they do perform better than lesser rifles.

[polksalet]

This is largely crazy talk.

 

Some rifle designs and manufacturers are inherently better than others. While I have a great deal of respect for Savage products (my .17 HMR is a Savagean I love it), they are not the mechanical equal of some other rifles. USMC snipers do not use Savage actions to base their uber high-end rifles upon and I suspect there is a valid reason for it. You'll see higher end rifles at any serious bench-shooting competiton because they do perform better than lesser rifles.

 

so since you suspect there is a valid reason for it you should have no problem producing the reason, eh...... edit to add that I failed to point out the obvious issue of assuming because the government does something it is done the best way??? end edit

 

waiting......

 

Not to be speaking out of school here because I don't know anyone who makes guns for bench shoots, my bad I actually do know someone who makes these, see the stevens accuracy link above. The reason Stevens uses Remington actions is because he learned to work on them in the military and all of his hardware is setup to work on them. He will tell you straight up that the Savage action is as strong or stronger than any other action on the market. But like I said, if someone needs th validation on knowing they spent twice as much for an inferior product more power to them.

Edited March 24, 2009 by polksalet

[polksalet]

Here is an excellent article on why many people that cost is directly related to performance in firearms.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

[wirehairman]

Polk,

 

I find it ironic you're arguing the merits of a good, dependable Savage rifle versus more expensive models when you've let Bill convince you that you need to spends thousands on a custom muzzle loading rifle to have anything worth a chit. I'll shoot my Lyman against any ML out there and am confident it will hold its own.

[polksalet]

Polk,

 

I find it ironic you're arguing the merits of a good, dependable Savage rifle versus more expensive models when you've let Bill convince you that you need to spends thousands on a custom muzzle loading rifle to have anything worth a chit. I'll shoot my Lyman against any ML out there and am confident it will hold its own.

 

I didn't say he had convinced me of that, I was just telling you what he told me. I already own a CVA mountain rifle in .50 and some kind of inline I inherited from father-in-law. I want a CVA Big Boar but have been unable to find one.

[polksalet]

How to build a mile rifle for under a grand

 

I think these guys might know something....

 

http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/long-range-rig.php

[wirehairman]

I didn't say he had convinced me of that, I was just telling you what he told me. I already own a CVA mountain rifle in .50 and some kind of inline I inherited from father-in-law. I want a CVA Big Boar but have been unable to find one.

 

[polksalet]

 

Old man hunts with a cva big bore mountain rifle in .58. I really like that caliber. Deer don't run very far when you put the wood on them.

[polksalet]

Typical Savage junk

 

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2008/...uperb-accuracy/

[polksalet]

What should a rifle be to be called the best? This is it, when I win powerball I buying a case of them for you idiots.

 

http://a-squareco.com/Rifles.html

 

drool...............

[Caveman_Nick]

What should a rifle be to be called the best? This is it, when I win powerball I buying a case of them for you idiots.

 

http://a-squareco.com/Rifles.html

 

drool...............

 

I'll take mine in .270 Winchester please

[Jimmy Neutron]

so since you suspect there is a valid reason for it you should have no problem producing the reason, eh...... edit to add that I failed to point out the obvious issue of assuming because the government does something it is done the best way??? end edit

 

waiting......

 

Not to be speaking out of school here because I don't know anyone who makes guns for bench shoots, my bad I actually do know someone who makes these, see the stevens accuracy link above. The reason Stevens uses Remington actions is because he learned to work on them in the military and all of his hardware is setup to work on them. He will tell you straight up that the Savage action is as strong or stronger than any other action on the market. But like I said, if someone needs th validation on knowing they spent twice as much for an inferior product more power to them.

 

Military snipers and many other long range shooters shoot Remington actions because they're just a little bit better than most others. You may get a Savage all tuned up and shooting .5 MOA. That's pretty damn good, but if you can get a Remington to shoot .3 MOA it can be the difference between a clean hit and a clean miss at 1000 yards.

 

Again - I'm not saying the Savage is anything but a great rifle. The law of diminishing returns holds true in the firearms world too.

 

Here is an excellent article on why many people that cost is directly related to performance in firearms.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

 

I'm a comm major, Polky. I took a class on group think. My opinion about Remington rifles is based a little on my own experience and a whole lot from guys that shoot more in a year than most of us shoot in a lifetime.

[polksalet]

Military snipers and many other long range shooters shoot Remington actions because they're just a little bit better than most others. You may get a Savage all tuned up and shooting .5 MOA. That's pretty damn good, but if you can get a Remington to shoot .3 MOA it can be the difference between a clean hit and a clean miss at 1000 yards.

 

Again - I'm not saying the Savage is anything but a great rifle. The law of diminishing returns holds true in the firearms world too.

 

 

 

I'm a comm major, Polky. I took a class on group think. My opinion about Remington rifles is based a little on my own experience and a whole lot from guys that shoot more in a year than most of us shoot in a lifetime.

 

Are Remington actions better than Lazzeroni? They must not be since the Marines don't use them.....

 

Let's assume for a minute you are correct and the difference is .2 MOA. Do you feel that you can maximize the ability of a .5 MOA rifle? Do you think Muck can? Do you think the difference in .2" at 100 yds is worth a grand?

[polksalet]

I'll take mine in .270 Winchester please

 

As I stated earlier in this thread I set out 6 months or so ago to obtain the ultimate deer rifle. I look at all calibers and rifles and came perilously close to buying a .300 Pegasus A-Square. Then I go to looking at calibers and looked at accuracy as 90% of the equation followed by availability and then cost. Well since it is a given that the .308 is one of the three of four most accurate rounds, in fact was the former gold standard of accuracy I should prob go with that. The ammo is cheap and you can buy it at Wal-Mart for 15 dolla. So then I started looking at rifles and that anything that shot around 1 MOA in the woods was about the most I could hope for. I looked at buying an A-Square or Stevens accuracy on .308 but the more I looked they seemed no better than what I already have. I mean I can put my Savage on a bench and shoot .85" with Federal blue boxes from Wal-Mart blue box 150 grs every day of the week through my Wal-Mart Bushnell blister pack scope. I am not going to tell you what it does with handloads as I feel like a liar when I'm saying it. So then I axk, if my groups at 100 yds is 1/5 the size of a deer's HEART and it is a 30 cal bullet moving 2500 fps, how can I improve on it? Since this thing has zero customizing I have no reason to believe I can't go to Wal-Mart and buy one off the shelf, slap a scope on it, and start killing.

 

I really want to know if you disagree with my line of thought on this. Although I am about to buy a better scope and trigger, how can this rifle be improved on for anything from elk on down??

Edited March 24, 2009 by polksalet

[Perchoutofwater]

Polk,

 

I'll take my .270 WSM any day over your .308. At 400 yds my velocity is almost 25% greater than yours, I have over 600 ft-lbs of energy more than you do at 400 yards. My bullet will drop 12.8 inches at 400 yards, your is going to drop 24.8 inches. I had really thought that your .308 would be cheaper to shoot, and it might be for target rounds, but for what I use for hunting I'm cheaper. Federal Vital-Shok, you are actually more expensive at $57.39 a box vs my $52.45.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Perchoutofwater