|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2004 16:24:22 GMT -5
Well yesterday i bought me a new Gun cabinet and was moving all my guns and ammo out of my old one...and i was cleaning off my dust coverd .22 that had been on a rack for quite some time.....And got to thinkin, wouldnt a .22 or even a .22 mag be a good weapon for the simple reason of the mass amount of ammo you could carry. Or at the very least a good pick for hunting since you could carry enough ammo to last quite sometime compaird to large shotgun shells, or big rifle shells.
Just a thought
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Aug 5, 2004 15:53:09 GMT -5
At the risk of starting an argument (which invariably happens whenever men start discussing politics, religion, auto mechanics or firearms) I would like to offer the following thoughts on the subject.
If someone asked you which was the best tool to use in building a house you'd say it's impossible to build a house with only one tool! I need a whole box full of tools!
The same is true of firearms. Firearms are tools and each one has capabilities and limitations which make it suitable or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Of course, we all know this already but I'm just setting the foundation for what comes next.
A man needs several weapons to get a variety of jobs done. I'm not going to make too many suggestions here for fear of that argument I mentioned earlier. But, a .22 rifle is a tool with limitations. If we're going to hunt with it we'll have to spend more time hunting than we would with a large caliber rifle or shotgun which leaves us less time to do other things. The reason being is that we can only take smaller game.
All wazoo, one-of-kind war stories aside, a .22 is unsuitable for taking out man-sized or deer-sized or maybe even reliably taking out dog-sized targets. It is so unsuitable that there are even laws against using it on big game as it will only wound an animal rather than kill it outright.
I don't know what kind of scenario you're suggesting a .22 would be good for but going along with the rest of this message board I can only guess that we're not following any game laws here because the SHTF and / or we're feeding ourselves in a survival / militia scenario.
If this is the case than having to do more shooting to feed yourself could be dangerous because every time you shoot you draw attention to yourself. A larger caliber rifle or a shotgun will get you more meat with one shot and that means less time hunting, more time to do other necessary activities and less chance of getting caught.
A .22 is a great gun and it has its place. It is an absolutely essential tool in any man's survival arsenal. But if we are going to limit ourselves to the size of game that a .22 can take down we might want to consider a high quality air rifle in either .177 or .22 caliber. The Crossman model 392PA in .22 caliber would be an excellent and affordable choice. Obviously it is much more quiet than a .22 and you can carry more pellets than .22 cartridges if that is a consideration. Both of these reasons allow you to shoot more and take more game without drawing attention to yourself.
If the consideration is "how much ammo can I take on a hunting trip" my question is "how much shooting do you plan on doing"? Back when I used to hunt squirrels with my dad and grandfather we seldom, between the three of us, fired more than 20 rounds and we better have 20 squirrels to show for it!
When many of us consider a basic combat load of ammo for our primary weapon to not be under, say, 210 rds and a practicle limit "on-your-belt" to be no more than, say 390, how much ammo do we need for a days worth of hunting?
Regarding ammo availibility, if we're planning for a SHTF scenario I would shy away from a .22 mag weapon unless it could also fire .22 long rifle. Reason being, .22 mag is difficult enough to find in some areas that it might leave you with a near-permanently empty rifle. Of course, this could be alleviated by a massive stock pile and cache of .22 mag in advance of any future problems.
One last point. You asked if the .22 or .22 mag would be a good "WEAPON." I would respond by asking you to take a look around the world for one military or police force that uses a .22 weapon as a primary weapon. There you will find your answer. If you find one, please let me know.
God Save the South,
CornFedReb
|
|
|
|
Post by IRONCLAD on Aug 6, 2004 5:57:16 GMT -5
At the risk of starting an argument (which invariably happens whenever men start discussing politics, religion, auto mechanics or firearms) I would like to offer the following thoughts on the subject. If someone asked you which was the best tool to use in building a house you'd say it's impossible to build a house with only one tool! I need a whole box full of tools! The same is true of firearms. Firearms are tools and each one has capabilities and limitations which make it suitable or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Of course, we all know this already but I'm just setting the foundation for what comes next. A man needs several weapons to get a variety of jobs done. I'm not going to make too many suggestions here for fear of that argument I mentioned earlier. But, a .22 rifle is a tool with limitations. If we're going to hunt with it we'll have to spend more time hunting than we would with a large caliber rifle or shotgun which leaves us less time to do other things. The reason being is that we can only take smaller game. CornFedReb I couldn't agree more. I always call my weapons "TOOLS" Once I have buy that new or old TOOL....I never get rid of them.....My tools are apart of my family. IRONCLAD |
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Aug 6, 2004 7:19:12 GMT -5
Well said Cornfed. I agree 100%. The tool analogy is a good one. Guns are tools too, and like any tool they have limitations and are better suited for certain types of use.
A .22 is a good gun, as Cornfed pointed out, for small game such as squirrels, rabbits, and other similar animals. It will not bring down a deer, other large game, or a man reliably. Sure the ammo is small and light, which makes small game hunting all that much easier, but for larger game or for war, I will take a larger caliber weapon. Sure .22 rounds are lighter than say 30.06, but how many rounds of .22 does it take to be as effective as one round of 30.06?
Good question Michael.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2004 17:42:27 GMT -5
guess i should have been a little more clear... i didnt mean as .22 as your only weapon....as was said, you need many weapons.
good posting none the less ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Aug 8, 2004 18:22:48 GMT -5
Well, dang Michael! How many weapons are you gonna tote!!!? ;D
God Save the South,
CornFedReb
|
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Aug 9, 2004 7:45:12 GMT -5
Me personally, I am going to tote as many weapons as I can. I never leave the house without something. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Jaeger on Aug 30, 2004 20:17:35 GMT -5
First off, I'd have to agree with IRONCLAD on them being tools, but I disagree on one point...If the D#mn thang don't work for crap then it goes bye bye.
Next comment/question: Do they make a semi-auto .22 Mag? I have never even shot/seen a .22 Mag so I have no idea what they look like or how they work.
|
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Aug 31, 2004 10:14:51 GMT -5
First off, I'd have to agree with IRONCLAD on them being tools, but I disagree on one point...If the D#mn thang don't work for crap then it goes bye bye. Next comment/question: Do they make a semi-auto .22 Mag? I have never even shot/seen a .22 Mag so I have no idea what they look like or how they work. Yes, they do in fact make a semi-auto .22 mag. A buddy of mine has a Marlin. It is pretty nice. Not really my bag, but it is nice for small game. |
|
