AStone
Member
Imagine in some future world, you are limited in the number of guns
that you could carry with you to acquire food.
(Yeah, I know, that's a stretch. But work with me here.)
You want a centerfire rifle for medium game - deer, etc.
(For me, that's going to be a Marlin 336 in .30-30. That's not up for discussion.)
You also want a .22 LR for smaller game (squirrels, rabbits, birds...).
Problem is, you will be on foot for much of the time that you're hunting.
You'll have a pack (day pack, fanny pack, backpack...),
but you don't want to tote around two rifles.
Now, this is a fairly new concept for me.
Up until now, I've considered buying a Marlin 39A (.22 LR) in addition to the 336.
(I'm selling a CZ 452 Style, which - even though a fine rifle {freaking tack driver it is},
I haven't been able to warm up to it since I'm a lever and pump person, not a boltie.)
But I came to understand that, in such a hypothetical scenario -
in which you only want to carry one long gun and one handgun -
it would be tough to decide which long gun to carry: .30-30 or .22 LR.
(What will I see today on my walk? Deer or squirrel or both?)
That led me to a new configuration for the toolkit:
.30-30 for the long gun for medium-sized game
(which are harder for most of us to get close to),
.22 LR in a handgun for small game.
After a couple of dozen hours of reading reviews, etc,
my current top contenders for a .22 hunting handgun hover around
a Ruger MKII/III Hunter or a Browning Buck Mark Hunter.
(Nota bene: this isn't really a thread for debating their pros and cons,
although I'm reasonably certain that will happen anyway,
even though there's plenty of other threads that already deal with that ...
)
I'm most interested in those two pistols right now.
I'm not opposed to a .22 revolver, like the Ruger Single Six,
but for now, it seems I'm most interested in a semi-auto pistol.
I like their longer barrels, the ability to mount a scope, etc.
So, here comes my question.
In my experience, one typically shoots small game (squirrels, rabbits) at shorter distances.
It's been a while (years) since I hunted squirrels, but my recollection is that,
even with a .22 rifle, 40 yds was a LONG shot.
Assuming one practices with said .22 pistol, and maybe even has a scope on it,
what is a reasonable maximum that one could take small game? 25 yds? 35 yds? 50 yds?
Yes, yes, I know, it depends on skills, eyes, etc.
But I'm trying to decide how much disadvantage one would accrue by carrying a pistol
(even with a longer barrel, say, 5" - 7") rather than a rifle with a 20" to 24" barrel.
Opinions are good.
Nem
that you could carry with you to acquire food.
(Yeah, I know, that's a stretch. But work with me here.)
You want a centerfire rifle for medium game - deer, etc.
(For me, that's going to be a Marlin 336 in .30-30. That's not up for discussion.)
You also want a .22 LR for smaller game (squirrels, rabbits, birds...).
Problem is, you will be on foot for much of the time that you're hunting.
You'll have a pack (day pack, fanny pack, backpack...),
but you don't want to tote around two rifles.
Now, this is a fairly new concept for me.
Up until now, I've considered buying a Marlin 39A (.22 LR) in addition to the 336.
(I'm selling a CZ 452 Style, which - even though a fine rifle {freaking tack driver it is},
I haven't been able to warm up to it since I'm a lever and pump person, not a boltie.)
But I came to understand that, in such a hypothetical scenario -
in which you only want to carry one long gun and one handgun -
it would be tough to decide which long gun to carry: .30-30 or .22 LR.
(What will I see today on my walk? Deer or squirrel or both?)
That led me to a new configuration for the toolkit:
.30-30 for the long gun for medium-sized game
(which are harder for most of us to get close to),
.22 LR in a handgun for small game.
After a couple of dozen hours of reading reviews, etc,
my current top contenders for a .22 hunting handgun hover around
a Ruger MKII/III Hunter or a Browning Buck Mark Hunter.
(Nota bene: this isn't really a thread for debating their pros and cons,
although I'm reasonably certain that will happen anyway,
even though there's plenty of other threads that already deal with that ...
I'm most interested in those two pistols right now.
I'm not opposed to a .22 revolver, like the Ruger Single Six,
but for now, it seems I'm most interested in a semi-auto pistol.
I like their longer barrels, the ability to mount a scope, etc.
So, here comes my question.
In my experience, one typically shoots small game (squirrels, rabbits) at shorter distances.
It's been a while (years) since I hunted squirrels, but my recollection is that,
even with a .22 rifle, 40 yds was a LONG shot.
Assuming one practices with said .22 pistol, and maybe even has a scope on it,
what is a reasonable maximum that one could take small game? 25 yds? 35 yds? 50 yds?
Yes, yes, I know, it depends on skills, eyes, etc.
But I'm trying to decide how much disadvantage one would accrue by carrying a pistol
(even with a longer barrel, say, 5" - 7") rather than a rifle with a 20" to 24" barrel.
Opinions are good.
Nem