Educate me... if I had one rifle, what and why

[mr.72]

Me: I don't hunt, never have, never will, just don't care about it, don't have time for it, and have no interest. I have shot a rifle a few times in my life and I was happy to switch back to hand guns. I live in the suburbs, it's a 30+ minute drive to the range where I can shoot, and I make it out there about once a month.

So, is there any compelling reason for me to own a rifle, other than the fact that I just kind of want one?

And if I were to own exactly one rifle, presuming I will never use it to hunt but only for some other purpose, what rifle should I get?

I am thinking I want a Ruger 10/22 and/or a .223 of some kind, maybe a Mini-14. Or maybe a 9mm carbine, given that I already have 9mm ammo all over the place.

[DoubleJ]

So, is there any compelling reason for me to own a rifle, other than the fact that I just kind of want one?
I am thinking I want a Ruger 10/22 and/or a .223 of some kind, maybe a Mini-14.

Do you need another reason, really?????

go here.

[mr.72]

So, is there any compelling reason for me to own a rifle, other than the fact that I just kind of want one?
I am thinking I want a Ruger 10/22 and/or a .223 of some kind, maybe a Mini-14.

Do you need another reason, really?????

go here.

heh... part of the allure of the 10/22 is that it's not $725.

mini-14 would have to be used, hopefully wooden stock, $400-500 max.

[Excaliber]

I am thinking I want a Ruger 10/22 and/or a .223 of some kind, maybe a Mini-14. Or maybe a 9mm carbine, given that I already have 9mm ammo all over the place.

Give some thought to why you want it.

If you just want to plink, as you noted, all 3 options would meet the need at varying levels of economic commitment. The 10/22 is clearly the most economical way to go, and you'd get tired of a day's shooting long before you'd spend more on rounds than you would on lunch at the deli.

Personally I don't see much use other than plinking for a long gun that fires a handgun caliber. The same physical envelope is capable of so much more with a rifle cartridge.

If you're thinking of potentially using the rifle for defensive purposes, of the 3 options you listed, the .223 in either Mini 14 or AR 15 configurations would fill the bill just fine.

[anygunanywhere]

I would not spend $700+ for a Mini-14. I have two Mini-14s, one I spent considerable coin on upgrades. If you want a .223, go with an AR.

If you opt for the 10/22 you will not be disappointed.

Anygunanywhere

[particle]

Since you don't really care to own one, and don't really care to shoot one, why not just buy a stripped AR-15 lower receiver in case they are restricted/banned in the future? If nothing else, it'll be a good investment. Heck, buy two or three of them and pack them away for safe keeping. Some day you might be able to sell all but one of the receivers to fund the rest of the build.

Otherwise, I'd go with the Ruger 10/22.

[OverEasy]

If you have a handgun and a CHL I would assume that it is for self defence. So if you are interested in defending yourself and your loved ones, why not have alternatives? I would suggest the next 'tool' to aquire after a handgun should be a shotgun. I read somewhere that 80+ percent of people shot with a handgun survive. I don't have statistics to prove it but I think that a 12 ga. with buckshot has more 'stopping power' than a handgun. The police and the military use shotguns. In a suburban area the buckshot would not travel as far as a rifle bullet could.
After the shotgun I would buy a rifle. The police and the military use rifles. The number of people that survive being shot with a rifle is a lot less than with a pistol. (I think it was around 30%). You might find yourself in a situation where you need something that will penetrate a barrier.
So, if you don't hunt and are not interested in rifle shooting but would like to have rifle for the sake of the protection that it offers.
My suggestion is a surplus SKS, 7.62 x 39. They are cheap, function reliably and the cheap steel cased import ammo works great in them.(Wolf, any of the Bears, Bernal, Golden Tiger, any milsurp)
7.62 x 39 is a 30 cal. round that will penetrate brick and concrete block walls, something the .223 won't do, and it is very effective out to 300 yards and still deadly to 600+.
I saw a video made by the military. It was a test of weapon effectiveness against a plywood wall , a brick wall and a concrete wall all with sheetrock on the inside. Inside the room were file cabinets, desks, etc. and dummies with flack jackets and helments. They used an M16(.223),AK-47(7.62x39), an M2(50 cal BMG) and an M60 grenade launcher.
Based on that demo I would choose the 7.62 x 39 over the .223. I'm still kicking myself for not saving the link to that video.
Regards, OE

[NcongruNt]

I've read a lot of folks tout a lever-action rifle as a good all-purpose gun. Marlin is particularly famous for its lever-action guns, and I have been considering a Model 336 (in 30-30) for future purpose. There are a couple of reasons:

As far as high-powered rifle ammo is concerned, 30-30 is inexpensive. It's not .22 or .223 in regards to cost, but it is a serious caliber that can be used for self defense if needed. It is also a suitable hunting caliber for a disaster scenario. From a quick search, it looks like it can be had for around $0.60/round.

This gun is also relatively inexpensive, depending on the model you want. It's a classic design, known for its reliability. The base model looks like it's going for around $375 new on gunbroker, while a stainless model goes for around $525. This is the model I'm looking at.

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/ ... /336SS.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr.72]

My dad has a Marlin very much like that (not stainless). I hated shooting it. I think maybe I'm just not a rifle kind of guy.

I did seriously consider getting a "tactical shotgun" 12ga.

[bdickens]

If you do get a "tactical" shotgun, make sure to get one with a shoulder stock and not one of those monstrosities with just a pistol grip.

[Liko81]

Personally I don't see much use other than plinking for a long gun that fires a handgun caliber. The same physical envelope is capable of so much more with a rifle cartridge.

I respectfully disagree here. A 9mm carbine is an excellent home defense weapon and not too bad for hog and coyote hunting. A .223 doesn't make a big enough hole for a clean kill on your average hog (great 'yote round tho). The 9mm is a round designed to be faster out of a 3-4" handgun barrel than practically any other autoloader round, and you'd be shooting it out of a 12-16" barrel, so you're getting EVERYTHING out of that cartridge. It also is about twice as heavy as your average .223 bullet; the .223's still faster, but muzzle energies start looking pretty even. Of course, 9mm is also cheaper by far.

Now, 9mm has its limitations; it's not designed to stay supersonic, so you're limited to about 75 yards range before it drops to subsonic speeds and loses accuracy. For home defense that's overkill; for hogs it's usually OK, for yotes it's a little short. It also lacks the bullet speed and punch of a deer round. But, I can think of plenty more uses for a 9mm carbine than just a range toy.

So, having said that, if you want only one rifle, you need to consider what you want it for. A small round is cheaper and totally adequate for varmints, but less effective at hunting big game. A larger round is more expensive and overkill for varminting, but obviously great for deer and larger.

If you want it for plinking, something rimfire would best fit the bill; .17HMR, .22LR, or .22Mag. .17HMR is a new round, basically a necked-down .22Mag with a rifle-profiled bullet on the business end. It's one of the fastest rounds available, and by far the fastest rimfire, so it's great for long-range shooting. .22LR is of course the quintessential plinker. If there's one reason why you can't have just one rifle it's because you'll want a .22 in addition to a bigger caliber; go plinking with a deer rifle and you end up broke and deaf with a broken shoulder. .22Mag is used in Olympic rifle-shooting competitions like the biathlon; basically a .22LR with double the oomph behind it. All three are decently inexpensive, topping out at about a dime per round for "plinking-grade" ammunition.

If you want a rifle for home defense, there are two calibers designed specifically for the purpose. .223Rem is 5.56NATO, and used in the Mini-14 and AR-15/M16/M4. Great round for defense, and decent for yotes (a little much for smaller varmints). 7.62x39 is the AK round, and the most available cartridge on the planet, seeing as how the AK and its variants constitute most of the assault rifles in military and paramilitary service. Great for defense, but the AK platform is by its nature more of a personal machine gun than a rifle capable of automatic fire like the M-16, so long-range accuracy suffers making it a so-so hunting weapon.

If hunting's your thing, it all depends on what you want in your sights. The rimfires, as I said, are excellent varminters. .223 is a 'yote gun and also good for long-range jackrabbit hunting. For hogs and deer, you'll want something that makes a bigger hole. .243 is a decent do-all; lighter-weight cartridges like 65 grain are good for 'yotes, while larger weights like 95gr become adequate for hogs and deer. .270 is a smaller .308; the two are virtually identical in terms of energy, but the .308's a bigger bullet while the .270's consistently faster. 30-30 is the quintessential deer round, designed for the Winchester Model 94. 30-06 is the grandpappy; it's a big bullet moving pretty fast. It's got more energy than the .270 and .308 over average hunting distances, but only the .308 is slower out of all these.

[KBCraig]

My dad has a Marlin very much like that (not stainless). I hated shooting it. I think maybe I'm just not a rifle kind of guy.

I did seriously consider getting a "tactical shotgun" 12ga.

If you hated shooting a .30-30, you're going to really hate shooting an 18" 12 gauge.

[Excaliber]

A .223 doesn't make a big enough hole for a clean kill on your average hog (great 'yote round tho). The 9mm is a round designed to be faster out of a 3-4" handgun barrel than practically any other autoloader round, and you'd be shooting it out of a 12-16" barrel, so you're getting EVERYTHING out of that cartridge. It also is about twice as heavy as your average .223 bullet; the .223's still faster, but muzzle energies start looking pretty even. Of course, 9mm is also cheaper by far.

The 5.56mm works a lot better on humans than it does on hogs.

The 9mm is a slightly supersonic pistol round, even when fired out of a longer barrel, and still delivers performance that is virtually indistinguishable from the 9mm pistol in that configuration. The major advantage of the long gun here is longer sight radius and better hit probability at longer ranges.

There are reasons why law enforcement and military units use the 5.56 rifle as their primary light antipersonnel weapon, despite the economic advantages of a blowback operated 9mm carbine.

The 5.56 is a hypersonic rifle round that creates a very damaging temporary wound cavity in human targets at close ranges, and is a much more effective man stopper than the 9mm. Rounds which do not reach hypersonic velocity are physically incapable of producing this effect. At longer range, when the 5.56 projectile drops below hypersonic velocity, its man stopping effectiveness falls off significantly and it tends to just punch really small holes through the target. It's not unusual for the long range shootee to remain capable of returning fire after being hit.

[Liko81]

The 5.56 is a hypersonic rifle round that creates a very damaging temporary wound cavity in human targets at close ranges, and is a much more effective man stopper than the 9mm. Rounds which do not reach hypersonic velocity are physically incapable of producing this effect. At longer range, when the 5.56 projectile drops below hypersonic velocity, its man stopping effectiveness falls off significantly and it tends to just punch really small holes through the target. It's not unusual for the long range shootee to remain capable of returning fire after being hit.

You're exactly right; the .223 is a more powerful round; about 3 times more powerful out of an AR than a 9mm is out of the CX4, in fact. Good for it. The fact remains, if I were ever to use a stocked rifled gun to defend myself and my home from another person, both an AR and a CX4 will do the job admirably. It comes down to what I would be more comfortable firing; the AR15 is longer, heavier and fires a more powerful bullet, while the CX4 is the opposite. I've fired the CX4 and it's a great gun. I've fired the AR15 and it's great too. I think if I were rudely awakened at 2:00 AM by an intruder, I'd want the CX4; controls are simpler and easier to find (fewer bumps on a CX that don't mean anything), I will have fired it more often since the ammo's cheaper and I can fire it in a pistol bay instead of renting a rifle bay by the half hour, and loaded with Federal HSTs or Ranger SXTs it will bring down Sparky the BG, no problem.

In my particular case, this is all pretty moot. I have a Mossberg 500 Tactical for serious HD (blows the pants off either choice, and the BG to boot), a Ruger 9mm handgun for most other bumps in the night, and I don't hunt, so if I got a CX4 it would be a range toy just like you say. All I was saying is that it isn't just a range toy and it shouldn't be discounted as such so lightly.

[LarryH]

If you "just kind of want one", go for the 10/22. That way, if you don't shoot it much (or at all), you're not out much $$$, or you can easily sell it again. If you do shoot it a lot, the ammo is cheap; then, if you want something bigger, for whatever reason, your next decision will be better informed (IMHO).

I've had a 10/22 since about 1970 (when they went for about $60). I've had a Marlin 336W in 30-30 for a bit over a month (just because I wanted a 30-30 lever gun and it's much less expensive than the Winchester equivalent).