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