Lightest 22lr for a pack gun?

Qicker306 said:
I just picked up the last Savage Rascal in stock at the local WSS close-out, red wasn't my first choice but I'll take it over pink... After the $50 USD rebate that's on right now I'll only be into it for ~$133 taxes-in, cheapest gun I know of.
Click to expand...

That's a great deal! If you don"t care for the colour, just give it a paint job.
 
I have a 10-22 TD, an AR-7 and a Little Badger.
I recommend the Little Badger as a pack rifle. Light, accurate, reliable and you can stuff it pretty much anywhere.
I barely notice it's there.

IMG_2139.jpg
 
wayupnorth said:
im kinda curious to know how the Henry Mini Bolt Youth and the Savage Rascal compare to one another.

besides the $100-150 price difference.
Click to expand...

The Henry has fiber optic sights and uses cast parts on the bolt and requires you to manually recock the rifle like a Cooey 75. The Rascal has a much thinner stock and a peep sight and is all machined steel.
Even if the Henry was cheaper I'd still say the Savage is a nicer rifle. I should really buy one to keep in the trunk "just in case".
 
BlackPowderBurner said:
The Henry has fiber optic sights and uses cast parts on the bolt and requires you to manually recock the rifle like a Cooey 75. The Rascal has a much thinner stock and a peep sight and is all machined steel.
Even if the Henry was cheaper I'd still say the Savage is a nicer rifle. I should really buy one to keep in the trunk "just in case".
Click to expand...

with Christmas right around the corner i have a little guy that is entering the age of getting his first rifle.
might be time to upgrade him from the 'Old Cooey' to a little plinker of his own.
 
K-Roc said:
kinda neat but $700 for a single shot .22? The badger is $190...
Click to expand...

And weighs almost 3 times as much. You can get a fishing rod accessory too! Lol Don't get me wrong, it's not cheap, but when a 10/22 takedown is like $450+, 700 for a lower production niche gun like this doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

Honestly, it's probably the best option for what I want (assuming it's accurate enough) but I'm far too poor to buy one right now. I could honestly see one in my future though, depending on how much I like the rascal or badger once I get to shoot one.
 
Qicker306 said:
I just picked up the last Savage Rascal in stock at the local WSS close-out, red wasn't my first choice but I'll take it over pink... After the $50 USD rebate that's on right now I'll only be into it for ~$133 taxes-in, cheapest gun I know of.
Click to expand...

Hmmm maybe I'll go to wss and see if they've got a rascal left... (or a badger if not. I'm weak like that. Lol)
 
I've looked at both and opted for the Henry/Crickett due to safety reasons. With the Henry you can carry a cartridge in the chamber and the rifle is not cocked. It takes intend to #### it by pulling the firing pin back (like on the old Cooeys). On the Rascal you load a cartridge and it will #### when the bolt closes while a thumb operated safety is initiated. IMO it is way easier for an inexperienced kid to accidentally move the safety or the safety gets hung up on something when walking through the bush looking for grouse and rabbit.
 
Suther said:
And weighs almost 3 times as much. You can get a fishing rod accessory too! Lol Don't get me wrong, it's not cheap, but when a 10/22 takedown is like $450+, 700 for a lower production niche gun like this doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

Honestly, it's probably the best option for what I want (assuming it's accurate enough) but I'm far too poor to buy one right now. I could honestly see one in my future though, depending on how much I like the rascal or badger once I get to shoot one.
Click to expand...

I just can't imagine paying $700 for a single shot .22, even though I like it too.

Can't go wrong with the Badger.
 
Uisge said:
I usually pack my sub-2000. Not real heavy, ammo weighs a bit more though. Unfolds in seconds. Not 22 but 9mm isn’t real expensive either.
Click to expand...

The entire purpose of this rifle would be to shoot grouse without spooking big game. 9mm wouldn't work for that.
 
K-Roc said:
I just can't imagine paying $700 for a single shot .22, even though I like it too.

Can't go wrong with the Badger.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I saw an ad for a Anchutz rifle. It was some special anniversary edition, care to guess how much?..



10 000 Euros!!!... $700 doesn't seem so steep all the sudden. Lol
 
Kody said:
Making head shots at 50 meters will require a pretty accurate 22 that can shoot about 1 in or better off bags. That will leave you some room for an imperfect rest while hunting and some error for distance estimation. I use a customized CZ 452 Scout with a lightweight carbon fibre stock and a Leupold 2-7 x 28 rimfire scope for grouse. The Scout can shoot MOA at 50 yards but I usually aim at the base of the neck when I am shooting from that distance. It fits well in the back storage compartment of my quad.
View attachment 129800
Click to expand...

Where did you get that stock and does it come in pink?
 
yomomma said:
Ar7 is not a novelty. AR7 was designed as a USAirForce survival rifle. Also used by the Israeli Air Force
Click to expand...

When you buy one that won't feed, or won't hit what you're aiming at, it's historical lineage - by itself - just doesn't cut it.

Great in theory, but not so great in practice; that is why people call it a 'novelty'.
 
Suther said:
The entire purpose of this rifle would be to shoot grouse without spooking big game. 9mm wouldn't work for that.
Click to expand...

If you're worried about spooking game, best to skip the 22 entirely, 3lbs is 4 cans of corned beef/spam.

That said, I'm doubtful that gunshots on their own disturb game (but I don't know what I don't know). I've shot deer and had other deer not even flinch at the shoot. I've had bucks wander by while I'm sitting having a tea beside the buck I just shot (prior to field dressing). I've blasted targets in the bush 20 or 30 times, packed up and left and seen deer feeding just around the bend in the road. I could go on and on. What deer and elk seem to react to is others in the herd being hit, not the actual shots. I shot and missed (bullets were hitting a rise in the ground between us) 4 times and the deer never reacted, the 5th shot dropped the buck on the spot, the other deer then cleared out immediately. I've watched bedded bull elk not even react to gunshots. I could go on and on.
 
MiG25 said:
If you're worried about spooking game, best to skip the 22 entirely, 3lbs is 4 cans of corned beef/spam.

That said, I'm doubtful that gunshots on their own disturb game (but I don't know what I don't know). I've shot deer and had other deer not even flinch at the shoot. I've had bucks wander by while I'm sitting having a tea beside the buck I just shot (prior to field dressing). I've blasted targets in the bush 20 or 30 times, packed up and left and seen deer feeding just around the bend in the road. I could go on and on. What deer and elk seem to react to is others in the herd being hit, not the actual shots. I shot and missed (bullets were hitting a rise in the ground between us) 4 times and the deer never reacted, the 5th shot dropped the buck on the spot, the other deer then cleared out immediately. I've watched bedded bull elk not even react to gunshots. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...

Spam is gross. Lol

I've seen both deer react to gun shots and not react. The thing is, you don't know which is going to happen at any given time with any given animal.

A 22 is less about the food it provides immediately (i always have enough food at camp or in the truck and I don't do multi day backpack trips currently) and more about the increase in hunting opportunity and potential to add food to my freezer.
 
Wendell said:
When you buy one that won't feed, or won't hit what you're aiming at, it's historical lineage - by itself - just doesn't cut it.

Great in theory, but not so great in practice; that is why people call it a 'novelty'.
Click to expand...

Yup. The original version designed for the airforce was made by Armalite, my stepfather has one and it is insanely reliable and actually quite accurate. I love that little gun so much that I bought myself a Henry... utter disappointment. Wouldn't feed reliably at all, henry sent me two replacement mags, they didn't work any better... and it shot 4" patterns at 50m rested off a bench.
Sold it within a month of owning it.
Even though they look almost identical, somehow they are very different guns.
 
mikeystew said:
Yup. The original version designed for the airforce was made by Armalite, my stepfather has one and it is insanely reliable and actually quite accurate. I love that little gun so much that I bought myself a Henry... utter disappointment. Wouldn't feed reliably at all, henry sent me two replacement mags, they didn't work any better... and it shot 4" patterns at 50m rested off a bench.
Sold it within a month of owning it.
Even though they look almost identical, somehow they are very different guns.
Click to expand...

I betcha the military paid a lot more than $300 for theirs. Lol

I hate it when companies do this sort of thing though, the concept is a good one - a light, rugged semi auto that can be stored inside the stock would be great if they functioned well and had decent accuracy. Instead, they are more of a novelty than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom