Rifle Suggestion Thread: advice needed

Free Republic | 12/12/03 | bc2

[bc2]

OK folks, here it is... everyone's favorite... an "I need FReeper opinions on a new gun" thread! Hooray!

Here's the lowdown: I have $1,200 and I think I'm going to blow it on a new rifle. From the bit of looking into it his will be what folks call a "battle rifle". I'm thinking about .223 or .308 but I'm certainly open to other suggestions.

I really can't spend anything over $1,200 even though I would like to. I can't get too crazy here.

Any suggestions you would have, are greatly appreciated. I know everyone loves a good "gun thread"!

Thank you...

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I have very little experience with the .260. I assumed there was a match bullet available in that general weight for that caliber. I'm sorry I did not clarify that in the first post.

I also am refering to the tendancy of lighter bullets Vs. heavier bullets, and the heavier bullets ability to carry a flatter trajectory longer due to it's higher sectional density. (P.O. Ackley published an entire volume about this for the Military.), given equal muzzle velocity.

And yes, atmospheric conditions effects all bullets about the same, however, the heavier bullet with a high co-efficient and sectional density combination is less effected by it.

[Travis McGee]

My first thought is set aside at least $400 of it for optics. You can't be a player anymore withoug decent optics. But then I thought, nah, put it all into the best rifle you can buy, and the optics can "appear" on the rifle at a later date.

[Phaedrus]

I bought a Swiss Army surplus Schmidt-Rubin K31 Carbine from AIM Surplus for $100, had the metal reblued for $150, bought a military leather strap for $28 and refinished the stock myself. Caliber is 7.5 x 55 mm. The machine work is superb and the barrel was pristine. Unusual rifle in that it's a straight-pull bolt action. Delighted with it so far but haven't yet shot it. Here's the review.

[tortoise]

Don't get me wrong, one of my favorite Alaskan Dahl's Sheep rounds is the 257 Roberts. It also thumps the largest of Caribou at extreme ranges.

I never was into the 257 Roberts, but lots of people are. The 6.5s are versatile; the Europeans still use the 6.5x55 as a moose cartridge, and 6.5s are the only smallbores that have proven to be reliable elephant killers (elephants used to be routinely harvested with 6.5mm Mausers). Of course, the insane sectional density combined with a very respectable velocity gives it a penetration profile that few cartridges can match.

I am merely pointing out some of the preferences that I used to elect from my Military days.

As a former soldier myself, I am extremely cognizant of the military considerations based upon real-world experience. But I'm not terribly religious about it, and my perspective is tempered by the fact that I am also an engineer who understands the fundamental underlying trade-offs. I have plenty of criticisms about cartridges and actions used by the military, though perhaps not in directions that some people might expect.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I bought mine in 1983 for $450.00 to use as a back-up when I guided Bear hunters in Alaska. It was solely for when we were forced to go into the dense Alder thickets to recover a wounded bear. (I hand loaded 250 gr. RN Barnes bullets. Of course my main rifle was a 375 H&H.)

I haven't priced any since then then but I have heard they go for $1500 (used) and up.

[Phaedrus]

I'm not aware of any rifle round that does 4 or 5 thousand fps.

[tortoise]

For a gutsy "Battle Rifle" I would choose the HK-91.

My primary complaint with most HK military rifles is that the ergonomics leave something to be desired, and the sights are too bloody low. A secondary complaint (only really relevant for more finely trained combat soldiers) is that the setup is relatively slow i.e. the latency between shooting multiple targets is quite a bit more than for other systems. Some of the newer state-of-the-art H&K carbine systems don't have this second complaint, but using the 91/93 and relatives slows down the time-to-target.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I agree completely. The military has a tendancy to select cartriges based upon the shortcomings of the enemy.

The 5.56 was selected because the enemy used 30 cal. (AK 47) The logic was that any ammunition that fell into enemy hands could not be used against us. (theoreticly)

It just happened that the unstable characteristics of the basicly "squirly" 5.56 made it a NASTY round when it came into contact with human flesh!

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I haven't priced any since then then but I have heard they go for $1500 (used) and up.

I was thinking they were around $2K brand new. Sounds like we're in the same ballpark.

[Phaedrus]

I've still got my heart set on an M1A.

I think I'm gonna have to buy one of those too but, boy, don't tell my wife!

[Eagle Eye]

That's my idea of erotic pictures!!

Gawd, they're beautiful...

[templar]

For about 1200 you ought to be able to buy an AK of some kind, an SKS and have enough left over for a rem 700, Savage 110 (or 112) or Winchester model 70 in 30-06 or 300 mag. Plink (or batle) with the AK, Hunt anything up to deer with the SKS (and keep stashed in the truck bed or trunk or behind the seat for just in case emergency use. You don't need to worry about scarring it up, it's ugly anyway). Save up and buy a decent scope for the bolt gun somewhere down the line and practice up on 1000 yard shooting or go hunt bear or something else big and dangerous.

Personally, if I could only spend 1200, I'd stay away from the .223 stuff, I consider it to mainly be a short range pliinking or emergency round (no hunting of anything larger than varmints), and the ammo is more expensive than the 7.62x39 the AK and SKS use (you can currently buy 700 round sealed tins of non-corrosive Russian 7.62x39 at retail for under 70 bucks).

IMO and FWIW

[Squantos]

HUA !..........Still OK there EE ?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Here again, I am not as an accomplised writer as I would like to be. So I sometimes leave holes in my communications.

My main liking of the HK-91 is because of it's rugged ability to be drug through the mud, sand, ice snow, salt water and still function. If I was to chose a rifle based solely on ergonomics, accuracy and quality, I would take a bench-rest grade Rem. 700 BDL action, and have it custom fitted with a Hart #6 barrel, in .308, cut to around 19 inches and crowned, with a 1 in 11 twist. For optics I would prefer a Zeiss 4x12.

That's my pet rifle!

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

.17 Rimfire Magnum. Fast, flat, and relatively cheap.

[Eagle Eye]

Gonna be on the road most of the next week or ten days. Should be lots of fun.

[templar]

An increasingly popular alternative for long distance precision is also the .260 Remington (aka a .308 necked down to 6.5mm). Good for 1,000 plus meters in a short action with .308 recoil. Ballistically excellent, and a trajectory similar to a 300WM.

And if you like to handload, the 6.5 Amax Moly 140 gr has a balistic coefficient of .618 and a sectional density of .287. Think about pushing that at 3000+ fps.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I still prefer 7mm ballistics. The 168 gr. match coefficient goes over 700 and Sectional Density is over 300.

IMHO the most efficient caliber ever developed. I am not a fan of Hyper-Velocity, more so, I'm a firm believer in accuracy.

[Travis McGee]

I agree with you about lousy ergonomics in the HK91. They just never felt right, just don't balance.

[Travis McGee]

Gonna be on the road most of the next week or ten days. Should be lots of fun.

Guns up amigo.