JohnBaker,<br><br>...continuing the conversation in the Campfire forum...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Naturally, I have a 4X high powered rifle scope mounted on it. I also have a Rem 541 which inherited a superseded older Leupold Vari X III 3 1/2 - 10X with AO <p><hr></blockquote><p> I have no doubt that if your Rem 541 is in good condition, it will still outshoot your 10-22... but you can narrow the gap.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A few years ago, I did a dozen or so recoil pad installations myself, and thereby justified to my wife the purchase of a lot of new tools<p><hr></blockquote><p> Funny, that approach works for me, too - you don't suppose women have us figured out and are just humoring us, do you??? Somewhat seriously - when I bought a small lathe and mill a couple of years ago, she got very enthusiastic about it when I was able to quickly fabricate parts that SHE was interested in - like the evening the clothes dryer shucked a part - she took the dryer apart, brought the contiguous parts to me and asked if I could make a replacement - took 15 minutes (thankfully a simple part) and she tells folks "...and it's still running just as smoothly as new..."<br><br>Applying that to your 10-22, it's obvious that you need to purchase a second used 10-22 for your wife "so we can look like each other at the range", and fix it up for her (complete with new scope). Take her and the 10-22s to the range with a bunch of ammo and dynamic/reactive targets and make sure she has fun shooting her "new" rifle while you miss and mutter a lot. Then, she will say something about it being such a pity that your old one doesn't shoot or look so well... get the idea? I think RedGreen must tap into my thoughts sometimes, I swear,,, <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>By the way, our most accurate rifle is actually my wife's--a bargain Rem 788 in .243 Win that was a demo model I got for a pittance<p><hr></blockquote><p> Arrrgh! Lucky - IMO, Remington screwed up when they quit making the 788s. At one time I had a (used) 788 in 22-250 that was da bomb - and in a fit of stupidity as a poor Lieutenant in Alaska, I traded it and some other stuff for some other shooting irons... NEVER sell or swap guns, that's what I learned, yup. Sooner or later, regrets creep in... Anyway, oddly enough, MY wife has the most accurate rifle here <grin>. My best buddy gave me a M77 V in 22-250 (slightly used; B-day present, If I Recall Correctly). We shot it out - throat was getting really long and I couldn't seat bullets out far enough to compensate anymore. So I sent it off to NY to Hart for a total remake - action job, super heavy barrel, the works. It's now chambered for Rem 6mm Bench Rest with a twist appropriate to be re-chambered to .243 if and when we shoot the throat out of it. <br><br>(I gave her the rifle at the time I sent it out for the work BECAUSE she kept swiping the M77 Mk II V gun in .223 that SHE gave me - "This is so accurate, I just love shooting it...." - I killed two birds with one stone. However, if I had been smarter, I would have given her the M77 Mk II V gun... her 6mm BR is a little more accurate than my .223 and a lot more versitile - maybe I was out manouvered...?)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I also tested a large variety of ammo several years ago. Some of my best results were with some older lots of Rem. & CCI SV.<p><hr></blockquote><p> I'm not brand-name conscious with ammo - mostly I reload anyway (some exceptions - it's not worth trying to beat Federal Gold Medal match 30-06 in my match M1, for example, so I just shoot it). All I care about is performance, not who made it. But in rifle after rifle and pistol after pistol, right now the Remington "Target" (really just standard velocity) and Remington Sub-Sonic gives very consistent results for us. It's the "best value" in all our guns in the accuracy/cost equation. As a bonus, it's noticably quieter in our rifles - no supersonic crack. I'm therefore not surprised that the Remington HV stuff shoots OK - oh! You're talking about the Thunderbolt or Lightning stuff. Hmmm. If you like that ammo, give a brick of subsonics a whirl. Also, try the Winchester Xpert22 HP. I read a couple of years ago that it is made on a new line with better tolerances, even though it is bulk packed. All I can say is that it shoots the pants off the more expensive Winchester stuff and is the only HV ammo so far that runs neck-and-neck with the accurate stuff in our rifles. Bonus: it's cheap.<br><br>Well, I've run off at the mouth long enough...<br><br>Good shooting,<br><br>Scouter Tom

Tom, <br><br>Thanks for the forum switch. I was half way through the first post when I realized it was in the wrong forum. But I was too lazy to shift it.<br><br>I like your scheme for my wife. I think I can use something like it on her. I also like your fix for the 22-250. That shows very good planning.<br><br>I find the Ruger 77 attractive in its reliability and durability, but what do you do about the trigger. Also how accurate are the new Ruger-made barrels. I have mostly Rems. I 've generally been comfortable with their accuracy and adjustable triggers. But I have misgivings re ruggedness of the extraction system. On the other hand, I've never had any problems with them. <br><br>Thanks for the reference to Fed GM in .30-06. I'll try it. I probably also should try the .22 Rem Target V and Sub-Sonic. You never know when you'll get another lot that turns out to be really good. <br><br>I think I neglected to mention the parameters re my .22 ammo quest. I already had several modest lots of highly accurate ammo. My goal was to find the most accurate ammo at a cheap to medium price. The search tended to be narrowed by what others in my gun club had already found to be acceptably accurate. I only tested the good stuff to get benchmarks re my own performance. My kids are starting to become significant consumers of ammo. I also had 2 modest lots of Rem HV HP which were quite accurate. The POI on the cheap stuff is gatifyingly the same.<br><br>I've found Fed GM .22 to perform well in pistol. I use it mostly in my S&W 41.<br> <br>Apropos of kids, my oldest has just joined our gun club's junior rifle division. We'll see where that takes him. It's a very strong program. They have excellent coaching, equipment, and performers. We've already sent 2 the medals in the 1996 & 2000 Olympics. I'm told we have a good chance of adding a third for 2004. We'll see.<br><br>John

John,<br><br>I have some M77s and the triggers are just fine on them (actually quite good). I have exactly one M77 Mk II and it is different. Two stage I like, and the weight is OK, but it's not as crisp as I would like. If your M700 triggers have been tweaked at all, I doubt that you would care for the Mk II triggers - I have read that mine is typical. It's not bad, really - just not as good as it should be.<br><br>I started off early in life with military turnbolts, so I have a predisposition to things like Rugers. Only have a few Remingtons. Since you have Remingtons... why switch? They're still about the most accurate out-of-the-box rifle made, eh? The extractors work fine as long as a case doesn't rupture, and nothing holds up to that anyway, so...<grin> <br><br>The M77 Mk II SS HB my wife bought me has been a pleasant surprise - only Ruger I've owned that I have done absolutely nothing to except shoot. It's a .223 Rem and it appears to me that it shoots at or very near the limits of the ammo that I feed it. The lead (start of rifling) is exactly where I want it. I like the revised safety. Other than that... my sample size is too small to draw any conclusions from. I can only repeat what I have read and been told by other Mk II owners - the barrel quality is uniformly good from what I hear.<br><br>All of my Rugers shoot very well - they are field guns to me - but I tweaked each and every one of them except the Mk II. They are probably a super basis for a semi-customized "survival rifle" (Mk II) - but they are getting a little spendy now for a plain-jane factory rifle. If I was shooting competition... no question that I would pick a Remington. (I do shoot comp, but not commercial turnbolts)<br><br>Interesting about the GM/SW 41 - that is precisely what my target .22 pistols like best (out of what I feed them). Not enough to matter for informal shooting, but enough to matter for competition.<br><br>Good deal with the Jr Marksmanship program! Hope your kids enjoy it and the time spent with you at the range. I've got one shooting High Power now, and perhaps another one will join in this season if I deam him ready.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

John,<br><br>Except for the M7 in 260 Rem, the other Remingtons are older .22 rf rifles. I forgot to mention something about the M7. I was not very happy with the workmanship (lack of) on the bolt. The area of particular concern to me was the bolt face - it was marking 90 degrees of fired brass with (I thought) the ejector plunger - sometimes enough to show perceptible brass shavings that would actually jam the ejector plunger in the retracted position. New brass, all sized, trimmed, uniformed, etc. and even with starter loads. I was in too big of a time crunch to risk sending it off to Remington (not happy with the customer "service" I got) - the youngest at that time needed to be able to use the rifle (it's a youth model, which he has since outgrown). I dropped a new plunger and spring in it, thinking that I had determined that the plunger was a little high (it was, but that was not the problem). No dice. Under magnification and with the aid of a sharp probe, I finally determined that they had not finished the hole for the ejector plunger - there was a raised burr around it. Very difficult area to work in - I did not have my lathe yet. Eventually got it carefully removed.<br><br>Like my M77 Mk II, this is too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. It did not show up until firing because the (slightly long original) ejector plunger kept the brass off the burr. I have never had any workmanship problems with Rugers (they are rough as a cob where it doesn't show or matter, of course). Makes me a little sad to see all the extraordinary workmanship on the Swedes and other older firearms we have - perfectly polished operating parts, even where it may not really matter... cost a pretty penny these days for that sort of labor, of course.<br><br>Other comments about the M7: Barrel is not stiff enough and I would hate to turn loose a kid with any larger caliber caliber (7mm-08 or 308) - it's too light a package. Muzzle blast is awful (would be even worse in a 243 chambering). The whippy barrel makes it really sensitive to loads - it was the worst chore I've ever tackled to get what I considered acceptable accuracy and power without excessive recoil (for the lad), and I never was entirely happy - it was good enough, barely. I will re-barrel this rifle, even though it only has a few hundred rounds through it. Also, it was & is a PITA to clean compared to the Swedes, using the same bullets, similar powder, and very similar velocities. If I was going to leave the barrel on it, I would hand lap it or possibly fire lap it. Second worst new barrel I've owned w.r.t. poor micro finish in the bore (The worst, ironically, is my "old Betsy" M77 30-06, but it is so exceptionally accurate that I forgave it the bore finish decades ago)<br><br>Caveat Emptor.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

Tom,<br><br>I really envy you the lathe & mill. You can do so much with it. A friend with some machining experience bought out all the tools in a small machine shop for $1,000 and the agreement to move all of the equipment within 1 week. Now his home workshop is filled with commercial grade tools. Even before that, in a minor emergency of mine, in his home workshop, he turned out a set of specially dimensioned bolts from scrap steel bar stock on hand, all in a very short time. I am duly impressed with such machinery.<br><br>Thanks for the reassuranceon the M700s. They actually had pretty good triggers to start with. They're even better now. And they are accurate. I've no complaints about them.Your comments on the Rugers are also assuring. <br><br>With your experience with the M7, I can understand why you have Rugers and not more Rems. I had an early Rem 572 that would not stay in working order. It was constantly breaking parts. Just 1 more reason why not to get a gun with an aluminum receiver. <br><br>I really appreciate your comments re excessive muzzle blast and recoil from the M7. A youth model had been in the planning stage. Learning to shoot & hunt is challenging enough for a boy with out compounding it with ill-designed guns. Naturally I was considering the .243 or 7mm-08 which would only have accentuated the blast & recoil. A friend got a .22-250 for his approximately 12 year old daughter for hunting medium to smaller sized game on an African trip. I think it had a longer barrel than I see listed for the gun now. Things worked well for them on that trip. <br><br>On your 10/22, what did you use for the rebarreling.<br><br>Thanks for all the ideas,<br><br>John

John,<br><br>I believe I purchased the 10-22 bbl from Midway USA - I can check my records if it's really important. The internal parts came from all over.<br><br>As for the M7... I dunno what to tell you. My kids have not had difficulty lugging heavier rifles around and they prefer shooting the heavier ones - the "problem" is the stock dimensions on adult-sized rifles. I'm sure you can figure out the same solutions I can and probably more.<br><br>Also, in my experience with our kids, I found that they were more focused on ultimate accuracy than I would like. All that practice with 22 and varmint rifles had that side effect... In other words, they expected a practical hunting rifle to shoot little one hole groups and were not confident in the rifles unless they also shot like that (some do, some don't - the M7 as-built seems to be in the "don't" category). It took a lot of additional practice at varying ranges on fairly elaborate cardboard and paper "game" targets before they accepted some equipment. YMMV...<br><br>But I think you have alternatives if I understood you. My constraint was that the rifle had to be capable of cleanly taking a wapiti - smaller calibers than what I used would be for the truly expert and/or desperate in my opinion. I would have been somewhat satisfied with ballistics in the 6.5mm M-S class, but the rifle wouldn't shoot for beans in that region (I tried all sorts of powders and primers and bullets). That particular rifle didn't begin to shoot acceptably until the case was getting fairly full (go figure) and then it was a matter of juggling blast and recoil caused by slow powder vs blast and recoil caused by higher velocity and pressure from faster powders, all the while keeping accuracy "good enough".<br><br>If a custom chambering is an option... one of the small capacity 6mms like 6mmx47 (6mm-223), 6mm PPC, or 6mm Rem Benchrest would do fine on deer with any of several off-the shelf bullets, within reasonable range constraints. The 6mm International (6mm 22-250) is pretty close to the 243, so not sure I'd recomend that for a small child. Would a T-C carbine be an option? I haven't used one, but they may be work looking into. Or how about a regular rifle dropped into a youth-proportioned stock with a little judicious bbl amputation? Or maybe something like a Mini-Mark X Mauser in 7.62x39??? That should be dandy out to 150 yards or so with decent bullets and be very comfortable to shoot. I've got to run, but hopefully this will seed some ideas for you to explore - hope they bear fruit for you.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

*scratching behind ear with foot, puzzled*<br><br>Heavy muzzle blast? OK, I know I'm not like most people when it comes to guns, but my first autoloading rifle was an M1 Garand, and I've been shooting that pretty beasty since I was... 10? Wow, how time flies when you're thinking in terms of brass. :)<br><br>Prior to that, with both youth and full-sized stocks, I'd been shooting full-powered rifles (.30-06, .308, .243) and 12ga shotguns of all sorts for almost two years. <br><br>Half of the problem with "recoil" is noise and flinching. The right hearing protection will take care of that first one. Only practice and maybe a buttpad can fix the later.

Kevin,<br><br>The M7 Youth in 260 Rem (6.5mm - 308) we have is 1) lightweight 2) short bbl. 3) requires a fairly high loading density 4) tends to require slower powders with the heavier bullets. It is more annoying to other shooters on the line than any other long gun we own. Concussive skin sting for shooters at benches on either side and a heft slap up to 3 benches away. Worse than a hotshot magnum rifle with a muzzle brake, 'cause everyone is closer to the side lobes of the muzzle blast.<br><br>By comparison, the Garand is heavy, has a longer bbl, is loaded modestly with medium-fast powders, and is gas operated (which reduces felt recoil). All of our kids have been shooting our Garands since they were big enuff to safely crawl behind the rifles propped up on the sand bags.<br><br>The same son for whom I was hustling to get the rifle and ammo squared away shot one or the other of his brother's Scout Rifles every chance he got, with much heavier loads than what was in his rifle. I simply did not have time to build another Scout Rifle for him.<br><br>If I loaded one of my hunting loads for my bolt gun into one of the Garands... bad things would happen. They use compressed loads of slow burning powder - very very hard on a gas gun. It would, however, have a "satisfying" report <grin><br><br>Recoil has many components. I am not knowledgable enuff to generalize what one load vs another may feel like until I shoot it. Ya never know till ya bust a cap on one... The worst recoiling load (in terms of genuine tear-jerking pain) I recall so far was a 30-06 load using a 125 gr bullet (very fast and very very accurate). It hurt like the dickens in 5 / 5 rifles with 5 shooters - all adult males. Very sharp impulse - not move you around on the bench, but like an ice pick driven thru your shoulder. After the first 200 rds were gone, I never reloaded that recipe again...<br><br>Hope that helps you understand where I was coming from.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom<br><br>

Yep- Never lit off the 260, didn't know it was that sharp. And body size does count a lot- at that age, I was already a hair under 5 foot and spent my summers with my grandfather donig things like carpentry and wood cutting around his property, so I was no lightweight.<br><br>And I'd love to toss that 125gr load into my Rem 700. I'm a mashochist, I admit it. I've had the chance to fire three shots though a .50 cal rifle, and one the first round was with the bipod. It's a sickness.<br><br>That, and I'd like to compair it to my 168gr .308 loading that I use for just about everything in my M1A- I've been able to just about duplicate Federal's match round for velocity and accuracy.

Tom,<br><br>Thanks for the info on the bbl., & most especially re the .260. I would not have guessed it had such sharp, nasty properties in the M7.<br><br>You're right. My situation is different. I don't have to provide for elk capability. Also this is long range planning. The tentative plan is for my son to start, & on deer, next year. He'll be 12-13 then. I'm providing for ample maturity. <br> <br>Right now, his capabilities are probably at max. with his 6 lbs 20. ga. By the way, you have stimulated my old brain to pore over Hatcher's Notebook re recoil. It took a while for this long-out-of-school old lawyer to rework the formulae sufficiently to get something convenient for appraising the probable recoil-generating capabilities of some likely guns. It has been a while. But it definitely was eye-opening. That provides an objective basis for comparing dissimilar guns.<br><br>His shotgun, a pump, is actually yielding a little more absolute recoil than my gas operated 12 ga. He clearly has ample tolerance for recoil & blast given his age. <br><br>Based on my own very crude assumptions, estimates, and calculations, your light .260 was probably generating only a little less total recoil than a full sized .270. However, the sharpness of the kick, coupled with a nasty muzzle blast must have made it a lot more obnoxious, especially for a young shooter. <br><br>Our objective will be to choose a caliber which is readily available over the counter. That will greatly simplify procurement & logistics. Normally we handload, but not always. Sometimes I'm just too busy at work (or something). Also, I really like the idea of being able to replinish ammo, if something goes wrong in a remote area. Furthermore, resupplying, even components is a lot easier, and more certain, if it's for a commonly available caliber. A favorite caliber of ours is .32 H & R Mag. It's a great small game cartridge. But, it's also unpopular. Resupply of components, not to mention loaded ammo, can turn into a long-term proposition. <br><br>Two attractive calibers seem to be .243 Win & .257 Rob. We already have my wife's rifle in .243. The 788 Rem is heavy, so recoil is barely noticeable in it. I note that, since a loan of my diminutive wife's gun would provide a great starting point for future developing. Although the barrel is somewhat more abbreviated than I would prefer, blast does not seem excessive. On the other hand, we're very heavy on hearing protection. We use double protection on the range, and sometimes plugs in the field if practicable. That practice would probably greatly reduce problems from muzzle blast.<br>If, he does happen to start deer hunting this year, I'm sure we'll use the expedient of my wife's gun. If later, we'll have opportunity to find a suitable gun of his own (as a starter later going to his brother as he grows??). <br><br>The .257 also seems to offer attractive capability without being obnoxious. But now I can see we definitely need to try the caliber first. I would never have guessed how miserable a .260 would be. I also looked more carefully at the 7mm-08. It's ballistics are such that it should recoil more than a .270 Win. I personally can't tell the difference in felt recoil between a .270 Win & a .30-06 in otherwise identical guns, although the former might be downloadable to noticeably milder behavior, given the lighter projectiles.<br><br>I began shooting a somewhat light 12 ga shotgun at age 14. For me, it seemed to recoil a little more than I wanted, at least with express loads. I think I would have been a happier shooter had I started with a 20 ga. If new shooters are uncomfortable, or unhappy with aspects of the sport, they may not continue. Why should they, unless circumstances compel them? My goal is to have my kids enjoy shooting at least as much as possible. I don't care if they move toward the shooting sports more slowly than some. As long as they are progressing in their accomplishments & pleasure in shooting, I'll be pleased. And in that situation, I think they will continue with it based on their own motivation. I belong to really wonderful gun club, but I am constantly amazed at how few members bring their families. It does not bode well for our sport.<br><br>Cyb,<br><br> No flame intended. But, I bet, when your own children begin/develop in the shooting sports, you may become very cautious too. The responsibilities of parenthood can inspire awe as well as caution. I'm assuming that you do not yet have children at that stage.<br><br>Thanks for making me think guys.<br><br>John

John,<br><br>Seems like you have it all in hand. To me the 260 M7 Youth has mild recoil but a nasty bark. To the kid it was all the recoil he wanted and stinging muzzle blast (not the loudness - we use ample hearing protection). Same kid shoots an 870 Y 20 ga - but only on his hind legs, not from some sort of supported position.<br><br>The 243 seems to be a superb choice for deer to varmints in conventional offerings. My dad has one (he loans it to family members) and it has dropped mule deer and antelope in their tracks every time.<br><br>I have modified enough barrels to notice that muzzle blast starts to escalate quickly in the 18-20 inch range, depending on caliber and case capacity. When we got the M7Y, they came with a pencil-like 19" bbl. They now have a 20" bbl... guess Remington noticed... Might be worth looking at the M700Y in 243 (1/2 lbs heavier).<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

Tom,<br><br>I'm getting some great ideas. In a few mos. my then 12 year old will tentatively start on mom's .243 Rem 788. For once my wife's diminutive stature will help (5'2"). He's now 5'1". The gun should fit. Weight will be issue. It's heavy. Accuracy is outstanding and recoil is negligible. Muzzle blast will be attenuated with double hearing protection. If he can handle the weight, and his performance with target .22s indicate he should be able to do so, then he may be able to go to a full sized rifle with only a shortened stock. I like that idea of yours. If not, nothing is lost. The shortened Rem 700 Youth looks promising. I hadn't noticed it before. <br><br>I may begin to experiment with down-loaded .270 Win. in my own gun, to explore its potential. Advantages: easy to upgrade when growth allows, versatile caliber, easy procurement, no addition to logistical burden since it's already one of our standard family calibers. <br><br>I'm also interested in your 6.5 X 55mm Swedes. What is the range of useful balistics in your experience. Also, what are the dimensions of your self-smithed M96s, especially OAL & wt?<br><br>If all else fails, we still have the .243 Win as a known winner. I'm also going to look into the .257 Roberts (maybe even Rob. Imp.). <br><br>I'll also explore the idea of a TC carbine. I have no idea of what reaction to expect. The idea sounds really promising.<br><br>Thanks for all the help.<br><br>John<br><br>

Ah, heck, don't scare me like that John- I'm kidless and unless they come with thier mom, it isn't going to change. However, I have taught kids, and won't teach any of them at the ages I was when I was shooting, much less with what I was shooting at that age.<br><br>Kids in general scare me- most of them you can't talk to. I've been accused my family of never having been a kid, so maybe that's why I'm afraid of them.<br><br>Yes, the big guy who isn't overly disturbed by nearly dieing is terrified of being placed in charge of a ten year old for twenty minutes.

John, the T/C Contender and Encore both have awfully tight releases on them. I sometimes have trouble with mine, becuase of short fingers. Just something to keep in mind for a youth gun.<br><br>The H&R-clones are accurate enough to be useful, and thier thumb break is lighter. Not quite as strong, but if your son has smallish hands, a lot easier to use. They are also a lot les expensive, just in case the learner gun is quickly outgrown, capability wise.

Cybe,<br><br>Sorry, I didn't mean to scare an old bachelor. I guess the prospect of having children does seem a little scary if you don't have a wife yet. But don't worry; my kids scare me all the time. You just have to remember that they're not supposed to be the boss. Just let them have fun with you. By the way, my wife regularly accuses me of both being a ninety year old man from birth, and never having grown up, and sometimes in the same breath.<br><br>Thanks for the warning re the tight opening on the TCs. It's great to know those quirks in advance.<br><br>I've also noticed that with Rems 581/541/788, for all of their virtues, it is hard to close the bolts. An action job helps. However they're still harder for say a 9 year old to close. Marlins are much easier.<br><br>As much as I/we dearly love the Savage 24s, kids still find cocking the external hammer hard to do. That means, proficiency testing is necessary before someone is allowed to use them without very close supervision. It seems to be an issue of strength, and hence physical maturity. Fortunately, they seem easy to open.<br><br>Thanks for the heads up.<br><br>John<br><br><br><br> <br><br>

John,<br><br>I used M96 Mausers because they were cheap, very well made, and in one of the "magic" calibers that has proven effective from inception to this day. Because they are small ring Mausers, I did not attempt to load them to the potential of the cartridge in, say a Ruger, even though these German and Swedish made Mausers are probably more than adequate for that (many have been and are converted to 308).<br><br>Loads used range from 100 gr Sierra Varminteer thru Hornady 140 gr I-locked. Bores are Moly conditioned and bullets are moly coated. Velocities are much higher than factory loads; deponent sayeth not further. I have headspace gauges... I did not try the 85 gr bullets as the twist is VERY fast in these rifles - 1 turn in 7.6 inches if I recall correctly.<br><br>The largest one is on a full-length stock. Bbls, as mentioned previously, are long for a Scout - 21.5 inches. OAL of this largest one is 41" and the real-world weight is 8 lbs 12 oz (rifle with 'scope, sling, 5 rounds of 140 gr ammo, and field cleaning gear. We found a long time ago that if the balance is good (superb with these), the boys can carry a 9 lbs long arm for days with no problem.<br><br>Hope that answers your question.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

Hey, I'm not that old. :)<br><br>The T/Cs are also external cocking. The hammers are often blocked by long scope bodies, so there is a number of people who make side extension knobs for the hammer, which might make them easier for people with small hands to cock. <br><br>I also seem to recall seeing double-rifle barrel assemblies being available for one of the over/unders Baikail is making (forgot thier importer, sorry). Those are pretty inexpensive, and supposedly easy to swap. The sights are mounted on the barrel assemblies, so changing the barrel won't blow your zero, and theyare internal hammers. I haven't handled one yet, but the other Baikail arms I've handled all seemed on par with budget-priced US makers, like Savage, and given their Russian engineering, they are probably about as reliable and likely to wear out as gravity is.<br><br>

Tom,<br><br>The 6.5 Swede looks like a good cartridge. I've read that it has prodigious stopping power, perhaps due to its heavy bullets. I guess the long bullets are the reason for the very fast rate of twist. How do its external ballistics compare with the .260 Rem? Superficially they seem similar, except as to the former's ability to utilize long heavy bullets. Still, I bet the 21.5" bbl & 8.75# wt made it a lot more fun to shoot than the .260 M7.<br><br>I noticed that Ruger still chambers the Swede in the M77 Mk II.<br>How readily available have you found the cartridges & component to be? Also I'm gathering that neither recoil nor muzzle blast were a problem with your M96 scout rifles for your boys. Am I right?<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>John

Cybe,<br><br>You're only colloquially old, as in old buddy :-)<br><br>It sounds like we'll have a lot of options. I've also heard good reports on Baikal's combination rifle & shotgun, which I find appealing. They make very sturdy, well designed, and as you imply probably nearly indestructible guns. Their Makarov is certainly a very well made pistol which is also a great bargain.<br><br>Thanks for the ideas Cybe.<br><br>John

John,<br><br>We probably should take this off line so it doesn't bore everyone else to tears <grin>.<br><br>Fair warning: I'm going to be a little long-winded here.<br><br>Elk and intentions of other trips yet in the future had me really fussing over what rifles, what caliber for the boys. As many can probably relate, my thoughts were shaped by my experiences...<br><br>My first personal "high power" was a 7x57 - Dad had others and I shot them, but MY first one was a 7x57. I loved it so much that later I assembled a custom one based on a commercial Mauser action - a lovely rifle, and I wish I still had it Great romance with that cartridge, great reputation. (I know who has that first one I built on a sweet little M93 carbine - it takes a deer each fall in Nebraska; old when I built it as a 14 year old lad with my paper route money, it soldiers on today.)<br><br> I loaded hot and accurate - not held-down loads for a supposedly flawed M93 (I have never seen a "flawed" one, but... I only bought a case of 10, keeping the best for myself - what do I know?). <br><br>As a young man, found myself in Alaska. For reasons best forgotten, sold that lovely commercial Mauser and switched to a 308. It was OK. But its last trip (with me) it darned near got me killed - too big and tough a grizzly, too close, awful penetration and bullet performance and I swore that day I would NEVER use that manufacturer's rifle bullets again (and I never have, not even target or varmint bullets). My Dad points out that I DID kill the bear... but he wasn't there; it was not fun.<br><br>At the time I sneered at using "magnums" in North America. I'm not so set in my ways now, but I was then. On a trip outside, I dumped the 308 and picked up a 30-06 - it was what my Dad always used; it was the first "high power" caliber I fired (as many of us, I suspect - in a M1903A3) as a kid.<br><br>Well, now. This turned out to be something else. It was, and remains, very accurate (altho a beast to clean, as I mentioned earlier) - more accurate than it needs to be. I used it for everything - for a few years even (don't laugh) - prairie dogs - it really is accurate for an '06. It became my "one rifle", and is the one I instictively pick up to this day, even with racks of others to chose from. In all these years, only two things have stepped out of their tracks: "The bullet-proof bear" and a mule deer that I shot with an "elk load" (too tough a bullet for a heart-lung shot - it ran 20 steps). The bear story is amusing from a distance, but best told in person around a campfire.<br><br>In those years my Dad, too, became a "one rifle" man - for him it is a heavy barreled .280, and we can see no difference in utility or usefulness between the two, having spent many hunts together (and more to come, I hope). We became very fond of Hornady Interlocked bullets, for irrefutable reasons - and sometimes Remington Core-locked. <br><br>Now my dilema was to put together something together for our boys... something that could be their "one rifle" for several years, until they firmed things up for themselves.<br><br>Boy, did I sweat that! I knew that as soon as I took care of the eldest, the other two would be clamoring for theirs - they are close in age. Money was not "tight", but it had limits. I knew I would not stint on the optics - that punts costs up right off the bat. And there WAS a small but significant spread in mass and stature between the three at the time.<br><br>I think I looked at everything. I'm sure I looked at every caliber available in an off-the-shelf chambering. I flirted with the idea of a 308 a few times. The first bear incident haunted me. Not enough penetration. A 7mm? Maybe a 7mm-08? I wanted to go with a 243 for lots of reasons... but worried about it. Anyway, I talked to lots of people I respect; people with experience. I read and re-read things, drawing my own conclusions. The little gun that went "pop" and simply killed game started getting interesting - the 6.5x54 (or 53) M-S. Not very impresive paper ballistics, but really impressive performance. Of course, the caliber and the rifle are one - no chance of getting any deals on 3 butterknife M-S rifles, and besides, they are terrible to put a 'scope on.<br><br>Then a flood of M96 and M94 Mausers came on the market. Same caliber, a little more oomph. Bonus: a reputation as a very accurate caliber, even in the old Mausers. The rifles were CHEAP. And there was some nice symmetry for me - they were essentially "high grade" M93 Mausers, which was MY very first personal centerfire. I ordered a couple. I was flabbergasted - these were not time-worn and hard used like my old M93 - these were primo; well cared for, arsenal re-built. I shot them - first with some surplus ammo (Berdan primed - I loaded a lot of that many years ago and did not care to repeat that). Hmmm, pretty good. Then some commercial ammo - PMC. Hey, this was getting interesting - and with iron sights, yet! Tried some reloads with the PMC brass and Hornady 129 gr bullets - holy smokes, these things are accurate!<br><br>OK - it bugged me that the case is a wierdo - slightly larger than "Mauser Standard" 0.473 inch - who knows what Paul was thinking when he dreamt that up - but hey, who cares? It's not like I was going to change the caliber sometime later - even if I did, all it would take with THOSE rifles was a different extractor and maybe some magazine/lip alterations.<br><br>Bought 500 new Winchester brass, more bullets, and a mold. Just about anything I fed them was accurate. Those cast gas-checked bullets? Zowie! Hehehe - son #1 and I even shot some High-power competition (they indulged me - he was a bit young at the time) with those - 2200 fps and accurate enough to beat more than half the other competitors - and we were using antique long bolt actions against the little black guns (that mostly beat us), M1As, Garands, and an HK or two. Not many 30 cal shooters beat us. I was almost convinced...<br><br>Dad sent me a "sporterized" Swede to check out. What it really was was a M94 stuck on a birch sporter stock with tall "see-thru" scope mounts, a cheap 3x9, and no other alterations. It sucked to shoot it with those mounts... but it let me find out from the bench that these things had quite an accuracy potential. OK; I'm hooked now. But man, I really did NOT want to spend the time and money doing a decent job of conventionally sporterizing 3 rifles - it's not cheap, and there are not many off-the-shelf good options for small ring Mausers (some entrenpreneur has really missed the boat). I figured it would bankrupt me for time and money to do it right.<br><br>Picked up goofy gadget that went in place of the reaf sight leaf and allowed the use of a long eye relief scope (pistol scope). I tried it out - it worked, and the groups were impressive. But what a jury-rigged affair! It would never hold up 2 steps into the world outside the range. Enter a magazine article, then another, about Mauser make-overs into Scout rilfes... and there was my ticket - an Ashley-Clifton mount. I had actually been thinking about something very similar and wondering if I could make it work, and here it was!<br><br>Built one. I must have measured and adjusted 20 times on my old drill press before I gingerly drilled the two holes - and I must have checked depth every 0.005 inches - this wasn't just ANY rifle, it was a German-built M96 hand-picked by son #1 as HIS rifle, and I didn't want to screw anything up. It came out fab. Finished things up in the evenings that week. Dropped a new Leupold "Scout Scope" on it and "Bore sighted" it the old fashioned way - look thru the bore, look thru the scope - you know the drill. Went the the range on the weekend. Fired three rounds -oooo, nice group -- two clicks, fired three rounds - right where I wanted it. Not bad!<br><br>Let son take over. Mind you, this is a 2.3 power scope (advertised as 2.5) and it's mounted way out there - he fires five rounds carefully. Uhhh... that's a pretty good - let's go take a closer look. Uh-huh - under 1.5 inches. He is estatic. I am wondering "...just how accurate are these things?" as he happily chatters and skips back to the firing line with me.<br><br>This is a 90 year old rifle with a lock time in the "sledge hammer" range (altho there is NO doubt in my mind that any primer IS going to go off from that whack). The trigger is pretty nice - in fact, I left it alone. Nothing wrong with a two-stage trigger, especially for a kid (or a Dad that is used to those from his youth and his vocation) - that second stage was crisp and definite, not too heavy.<br><br>Then we worked on loads in earnest. It likes about everyting we have fed it. Tried Remington and Winchester factory ammo, too. It was workman-like, but... mild loads, not my favorite bullets, and the accuracy was OK but nowhere near the potential of the rifle. Say, sub 2 inch groups at 100 yards. Plenty good enough, but we already knew the rifle was much more capable.<br><br>The loads we standardized on are not going to have anyone scared of blowups (nervous Dad that I am, I have headspace gauges, know how to use them, and have kept records - all is as it was when we started, and I still check once in a while). But they are significantly more "robust" than factory. The PMC, by the way, was actually pretty warm factory ammo and shot pretty good. Chrongraphed everything and did statistical analysis, of course - we were getting down to splitting hairs, so to speak. Groups were 10 shot groups for a higher confidence level. What we have are respectable loads for 100 grain Sierra Varminters, 129 gr Hornady Interlocked, and 140 gr Hornady Interlocked. For paper energy buffs, the 129s and 140s are sufficient for Elk. There is a guide who uses a 6.5x55 as his "elk stopper" rifle (factory ammo) when a nimrod wounds one and it takes off over the hill. Why? Because he says "It blows blood and bone meal out the far side and puts the animal down right away..." Crude words, but telling...<br><br>By the way, all these loads are sub 1 inch outside-to-outside at 100 yards. And they are way sub 2 inch at 200 yards, which just fascinates me, because everything looks so TINY through those scopes. As I wrote earlier, this son is just deadly on prarie dogs with his rifle. We had two Marine Colonels with us on one trip. They were great company and good folks to be out with. On the last day - a windy one - I was sitting things out - lots of dogs, but at range and with the wind and my .223 it was more relaxing to sit and sniff the air. I gradually became aware that the Marines had stopped shooting their 22-250 and 243 and were silently standing behind my son as he laid into the dogs at 350 - 400 yards. After a few minutes they came back to where I was and said - "Your son sure can shoot that funny rifle. He's reaching out there better than we are..." Of course, I was kinda proud of him - even the Marines could see that the boy and his rifle worked well together <grin>.<br><br>The rest is history - I built more. I like the Burris 2.75 Scope better, and I'd be willing to bet that it's a bit more robust than the Leupold. I won't give up my 30-06, but these have been great rifles so far for the boys.<br><br>This has all taken place in the last three years and our one opportunity in between then and now for a great clan hunt was repeatedly interfered with by "cowboys" from Denver, unfortunately. I was really POed about that - boys stalking all day, then men on horses galloping out of the timber, blazing away. Repeatedly. Third trip that sort of thing has happened, even on private land that we had permission on (and they did not). So bad that time that we went without, and it bugs me that my boys have not experinced that bittersweet thrill/sorrow of a successful big game hunt first hand as a result. We will not hunt that state again, regretably - it has gotten worse each time, and it's the "locals", not us out-state folks who behave like that. More varminting, and we're planning another trip West soon - as soon as Grandpa (my Dad) is ready - probably next year.<br><br>I know I didn't give you specific ballistics. I assure you that they are respectable and quite safe, but they are off *some* charts AND remember that they are moly bores and bullets, which takes a bit more powder (usually) than naked bullets. Oh - last trip to the Dakotas, we tried out some Hornady 95 gr V-Max bullets. Very impressive! Eldest son won't change from what he likes, but the other two use them now instead.<br><br>Sorry for being long-winded, but I meant to explain why I chose that rifle and caliber - my reasonings and reasons may not be applicable for you, I and I don't want to mis-lead anyone. Dads and kids should figure these things out together for themselves, eh?<br><br>Good shooting; good hunting,<br><br>Tom

Tom,<br><br>Thank you very much for all of the information, and for your personal story. It's a very, very good story. I was fascinated. You may want to look into writing before you settle down on a career. :-)<br><br>Incidentally, I'm not so sure that we can use the gun or the cartridge. It sounds awfully proprietary. We'll see. We'll make sure we have the right one of our own to put our name on. <br><br>Yours,<br><br>John