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 I also have a Rem 541 which inherited a superseded older Leupold Vari X III 3 1/2 - 10X with AO 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