Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Administration
Member Introductions
new guy from fort leonard wood, MO.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="trebark" data-source="post: 362989" data-attributes="member: 19172"><p>No confusion here. I understood your question about barrel contour. Generally speaking, the heavier the barrel, the more accurate the rifle. For a long range rig I like muzzles of no smaller than .65 for a 'carry rifle' (.75 is better) and no smaller than .82 for more dedicated long range 'sit here' and 'shoot there' type rifles.</p><p> </p><p>The point I wanted to raise with you in terms of caliber is the relative weakness that the high-power 22s have when it comes to long range shooting. Sure, the 22-250 is screaming fast but with lightweight bullets and poor BCs, at 500 yards, you better have the wind doped just right. In light of that, I wanted to suggest to you a better alternative which would be to step up to the 243 (6mm) cartridges. Their recoil is low but the BCs you can get are great. Their effective range for targets and varmints are about as far as you can see and with the high BCs they buck the wind waaaay better than the 22s. So the rifle you're looking at might be a good deal in terms of $$, it might not be such a great deal in terms of what you want to do. Just my two cents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="trebark, post: 362989, member: 19172"] No confusion here. I understood your question about barrel contour. Generally speaking, the heavier the barrel, the more accurate the rifle. For a long range rig I like muzzles of no smaller than .65 for a 'carry rifle' (.75 is better) and no smaller than .82 for more dedicated long range 'sit here' and 'shoot there' type rifles. The point I wanted to raise with you in terms of caliber is the relative weakness that the high-power 22s have when it comes to long range shooting. Sure, the 22-250 is screaming fast but with lightweight bullets and poor BCs, at 500 yards, you better have the wind doped just right. In light of that, I wanted to suggest to you a better alternative which would be to step up to the 243 (6mm) cartridges. Their recoil is low but the BCs you can get are great. Their effective range for targets and varmints are about as far as you can see and with the high BCs they buck the wind waaaay better than the 22s. So the rifle you're looking at might be a good deal in terms of $$, it might not be such a great deal in terms of what you want to do. Just my two cents. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Administration
Member Introductions
new guy from fort leonard wood, MO.
Top