rifle for woman

Don Armstrong · #41 11/22/05, 04:28 PM

Hold it steady and s.q.u.e.e.z.e the trigger, then keep holding it steady afterwards - for G's sake don't pull it. It should be a surprise when the rifle fires.

ace admirer · #42 11/22/05, 09:46 PM

Hello Don,

I have to admit that i put all my rifles and other stuff in safes nine years ago when my son was born....back then you were lucky to get 2.5 MOA and 3.5 was considered about average for a 22 rimfire rifle...has ammo improved or the rifles or both? and i really feel bad for asking this but,, what is a CZ?

oh by the way putting the firearms away and keeping him from toy guns was a mistake....he's fascinated by them now...so now he's got two 22s, and a 223. i gave up on the little girl, she got a 22 for her sixth birthday..and now i have the late life eyesight thing going on. Thanks for the information.

Kenneth in NC · #43 11/22/05, 10:12 PM

If that Marlin is a old Model 60 I'm not surprised. They were and are fine shooting 22 rifles. Keep practicing.

Yep Christmas Birthday babies deserve 3 presents. Just ask my uncle. He mentions it each year.

Kenneth in NC

Quint · #44 11/23/05, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilberte

Don't know about the less than one minute of angle thing. I do know that my .22 is very accurate out to about 50 yards or so. I can usually hit a bottle cap 2 out of three times at that distance, course that's with a scope and from a rest.

OneWheelBiting is much better, he can put a flea's eye out at a 1,000 yards, shooting backwards, blindfolded, from an off-hand position

I sit on the back deck of my house shooting from the picnic table and smack squirrels in the noggin in the treeline near my house with my Remington 513T . It is about 100-150 yards or so depending on the tree. Of course the competition scope certainly helps. No way my eyes could pull that off with the stock redfield peep. The wind really plays hell with those little bullets out at that range too. Even a light breeze can make a difference. Good wind doping practice.

papaw · #45 11/23/05, 11:03 AM

So, what about a Marlin lever action? I am suprised no one mentioned it.

Jolly · #46 11/23/05, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Armstrong

Crikey, I said under $1,000 , didn't I? I'm still not sure the Kimber is better than the CZ, but it's close, and only four or six (or eight) times the price of the CZ.

I sort-of agree here. The .243 is a great round.

If you're buying a .22, though, you might as well go for the most popular one - and that's the .223. The .22-250 is more powerful, but not so much more so that it's worth sacrificing the commonality of the military round.

Again, the .243 is great. If I was having just one round, and I was loading my own, that's probably what I'd get. I could load it down to around the hot-shot .22's, or up to a pretty heavy deer-killer. Bullet weight say 55 to 110 grains.

However, I'm not. I like the 6.5x55mm Swede (Mauser). It's effectively the same recoil as the .243. Really - no worse (±5%). Proven long-range performance though. It was designed as a military cartridge back in the days of the .303, .30-06, 8mm Mauser. It's good for anything on the North American continent with the exception of grizzly and maybe moose (from memory, acceptable in Europe for moose too). Choose your shots and it could handle them too.

I like the Swede...I own one - I cut it down to 20", restocked it with a bit of Claro Walnut, freefloated the barrel, dropped in a Dayton trigger, put in a speedlock, bedded the action, and had the bolt turned down. It does well, with a minimum of fuss, but a lot of the Swede's reputation is built on the sectional density of the 6.5 bullets it shoots - axis rotation in flight is very stable and pentration is better than the caliber would suggest...probably why Bell was so successful shooting elephants with his 7mm Mauser with 175 grains. Same thing, different caliber, both MauserWorks creations.

But you can do the same thing with the 260 Remington, and .308 brass is easy to find if you reload (the 260 is a .308 necked down).

In killing things, meplat counts, which is why I like rifles bigger than .22 caliber for planting animals. Another one I should have added to my list of mildcats was the 257 Roberts...but it is still not as efficient, or as quite as the .250 Savage. I feel the .250 is one of the all-time greats which is sadly somewhat ignored nowadays...except when using the brass as the basis for the 22-250...

Don Armstrong · #47 11/23/05, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace admirer

I have to admit that i put all my rifles and other stuff in safes nine years ago when my son was born....back then you were lucky to get 2.5 MOA and 3.5 was considered about average for a 22 rimfire rifle...has ammo improved or the rifles or both?

Yes, both. They're improving - except the el-cheapo stuff imported from Asia, or some of the cheap job-lots from Spain or Turkey. Mind you, there's some pretty good, good-value stuff from there too - like PMC. None of it accounts for the performance of the CZ, though. That just is, and always has been, an incredibly good rifle - built rugged, and built well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace admirer

i really feel bad for asking this but,, what is a CZ?

CZ actually stands for something terribly complicated in Czechoslovakian, but you might as well just say it stands for Czech. The name CZ is recent, but the rifles have been sold in Australia for well over 40 years, and those were rugged tack-drivers back then too. They were sold by the brand name Brno then, which is the city they were made in (same derivation, same company that designed the British WW2 Bren Gun). There's been arms and armourers centred in that area for centuries.

CZ make very good centrefire rifles too. Same principle - rugged, reliable, quality at a quality price, but nowhere near a luxury price. If you want something that's better than ordinary, then CZ gives you more than you pay for. Of course, not everyone needs that, or is prepared to treat themselves to it.