First Rimfire

B

bpeezer

New member
I have a .30-06, and I'm looking at purchasing my first rimfire rifle. I know I want a bolt action, as this rifle will mostly be used for training purposes. I've narrowed it down to a savage, as that seems to be the best option for my price range (around $300-$400 new). Today I handled one, and I fell in love with the laminate thumbhole stock. So I have two questions:

1. For my first rimfire, would a .22 lr be better or a .17 hmr? I know that the ballistics of .17 hmr are superior, but the people I have talked to say that "everyone, no matter what, needs a .22 lr" As of right now, I'm leaning heavily towards .22 lr. The ammo is cheaper and more abundant as well :D

2. Will having a stainless barrel be a real improvement over a blued barrel? A lot of people swear by stainless, but this rifle will be used in fair weather conditions and cleaned and babied. Is there an actual need for a stainless barrel?
 
You don't need a stainless barrel. .17 is more accurate, shoots a little farther and a lot faster, but its much more expensive. I'd get the .22.


Just get one you like and spend a money on a decent one that you like.
 
I would go with the 22lr for the reasons you stated, ammo price and availability.

It sounds like you are going to really take care of the weapon so a blued rifle should suit you fine.

Have you tried the trigger on the savage yet and if so how was it?
 
For training purposes definitely a 22lr, ammo price is a lot cheaper.
You could easily eat up hundreds of rounds without worrying about the price.

You shouldn't need stainless, unless you live in a exceptionally muggy place.
If never had rifles get rust or tarnished from use in the rain, if you oil them and wipe them down after its fine.
But my rifles can easily rust/tarnish just sitting in the gun cabinet, but I do live in a very muggy place.
 
savages are good rifles, there is no real advantage of stainless over blueing, believe it or not, stainless steel will rust just like everything else if it's not taken care of, pretty much it's just an aesthetic option. i prefer blued just because of less sun glare. I would go with 22lr over 17 just because the main reason people say to get a 22lr is because there is little to no recoil and it's dirt cheap. if you get the .17 you will still end up paying more than you would if you bought a 9mm carbine, which would serve about the same purpose as a cheaper, lower recoil practice gun. you would be surprised how long a $13 525 round box of 22lr ammo can last you with a bolt action. a lot longer than a $16 50 round box of .17
 
Sorry off topic here but did JNFRLuis actually put his physical address in on his location tag for his profile?

Not to sound paranoid but I sure wouldn't do that...
 
Thanks for the links and suggestions, it looks like .22 is the way to go. AllenJ, I have not tried the savage trigger yet. I have dealt with glock triggers in the past, do they feel somewhat similar?

Also, I'm most likely going to order the mark II through a local store. I prefer to buy new rather than used, and since this is a relatively cheap rifle I'm willing to spend the extra fifty bucks to make sure I get good customer service.
 
I have dealt with glock triggers in the past, do they feel somewhat similar?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't really compare the two.

Sorry off topic here but did JNFRLuis actually put his physical address in on his location tag for his profile?

Not to sound paranoid but I sure wouldn't do that...
Click to expand...

I also thought that was strange.
 
Yes, the accu-trigger. I don't have any notions as to "the way a trigger has to feel" for me to like it, so I'm open to different trigger configurations. The glock is simply the only trigger I have used that has the built in safety like that.
 
@OP: My 1st rifle was 30-06 (Howa 1500) and for the 2nd I also went 22lr bolt action. I have a Savage Mark II, around $200 without scope. It's pretty good and I'm happy with it.

The next one most likely gonna be a rugger 10/22 just to have a semi auto.
 
". . . first post ever AND he lives in LA!" - Hansam

Please never ever confuse LA with L.A. That is a slap in the face for Louisiana (LA) but a great improvement for L.A. (Los Angeles).

We can have all the guns we want and carry them concealed with a minimum of legal fuss.

The only thing positive about L.A. is the much less humid weather that we experience in LA.
 
Yes, the accu-trigger.
Click to expand...
I did not know that it has an Accu-trigger, my bad. You'll like the trigger, they are considered one of, if not the best stock triggers available.

Please never ever confuse LA with L.A. That is a slap in the face for Louisiana (LA)
Click to expand...
More like a punch in the mouth:D
 
Savage is a fine gun and a top pick in my book. The .17hmr is a very bad choice for the uses you describe, .22lr is the best. Doesn't make the decision very hard does it?

LK
 
La, L.A. or UCLA

Tuzo wrote: Please never ever confuse LA with L.A. That is a slap in the face for Louisiana (LA) but a great improvement for L.A. (Los Angeles).

For a minute there I thought you were talking about my "L.A." Thats Lower Alabama. I live in UCLA... aka ugliest corner of lower Alabama. Alabama is an "open carry" state, which I think is pretty neat.

anyway... I would go .22 lr . I want this as my next rimfire, savage mark II TR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top