I have a semi-customized Savage .300 wm. I'm considering a trainer type gun. I was thinking about a .223 set up as close to the .300 as possible. I have seen some people here that have a .22 as a trainer. A .22 seems way more economical, but harder to set up like my .300. What would you recommend?
- Thread starter 3fingervic
- Start date
Re: "Trainer" gun
I've used my 22 to do some training with tho its not set up like my other guns I've found that if I just work on my form and basics and learn to shoot a 22 it all transfers over to my other rifles. The first couple times out I found it quite harder to shoot a 22lr well, but once I did figure it out my shooting improved with my other rifles. Just my 2 cents tho
I've used my 22 to do some training with tho its not set up like my other guns I've found that if I just work on my form and basics and learn to shoot a 22 it all transfers over to my other rifles. The first couple times out I found it quite harder to shoot a 22lr well, but once I did figure it out my shooting improved with my other rifles. Just my 2 cents tho
Re: "Trainer" gun
you can build a 22 trainer but it cost about as much as building a centrefire rifle so it depends on your budget , you could also just go and buy a good rimfire and shoot that as it is , CZ make a very good gun I own 2 of them , but one is out at the smith getting a MCM A5 stock and Lilja barrel and a 3lb trigger and some other thing's but you get the idea .
So my vote is build one identical to your centrefire's it took me a few years to get all the parts for my build ,if you do it like that it's not to bad .... just don't work out how much you just spent on a 22 LOL .
you can build a 22 trainer but it cost about as much as building a centrefire rifle so it depends on your budget , you could also just go and buy a good rimfire and shoot that as it is , CZ make a very good gun I own 2 of them , but one is out at the smith getting a MCM A5 stock and Lilja barrel and a 3lb trigger and some other thing's but you get the idea .
So my vote is build one identical to your centrefire's it took me a few years to get all the parts for my build ,if you do it like that it's not to bad .... just don't work out how much you just spent on a 22 LOL .
Re: "Trainer" gun
Well, I guess I'm going to buy a Savage Mark II GL(southpaw). And try to get another stock SSS that is the same or similar to my centerfire offering. The gun can be had for less than $200 and the stock for less than $250. I have the scope and rings, I will just need a base. About $450 for a trainer shouldn't be too bad. Plus, it will save some shots on my .300. Thanks for the advice.
Well, I guess I'm going to buy a Savage Mark II GL(southpaw). And try to get another stock SSS that is the same or similar to my centerfire offering. The gun can be had for less than $200 and the stock for less than $250. I have the scope and rings, I will just need a base. About $450 for a trainer shouldn't be too bad. Plus, it will save some shots on my .300. Thanks for the advice.
Re: "Trainer" gun
22lr good for 308, 223 is close enuff to 300 in my opinion but as far as trainer i have a 22lr i bought off of a hide member made by Thompson Center its a benchmark R-55 i don't think they make it anymore but its a good trainer for my 308 i don't think it be good for a 300
22lr good for 308, 223 is close enuff to 300 in my opinion but as far as trainer i have a 22lr i bought off of a hide member made by Thompson Center its a benchmark R-55 i don't think they make it anymore but its a good trainer for my 308 i don't think it be good for a 300
Re: "Trainer" gun
How can anyone not own one or more .22 Rifles...
A gun is a gun. The techniques you use to make the shot are almost all universal. Forget about the bolt throw being shorter, the recoil being less, and the bolt handle being different.
At the most, try to make sure the stock is roughly similar, and your head position is the same as on your bigger rig.
How can anyone not own one or more .22 Rifles...
A gun is a gun. The techniques you use to make the shot are almost all universal. Forget about the bolt throw being shorter, the recoil being less, and the bolt handle being different.
At the most, try to make sure the stock is roughly similar, and your head position is the same as on your bigger rig.
Re: "Trainer" gun
I've been debating on selling my 10/22 target and building a savage mark II to use as a trainer for my 700p.
I've been debating on selling my 10/22 target and building a savage mark II to use as a trainer for my 700p.
Re: "Trainer" gun
Good marksmanship skills should not be in any way dependent on, or relative to, a particular rifle's ergonomics, etc. Imposing such requirements are sorta like imposing a handicap on the learning/training process.
It's easier to shoot a tuned, pampered rifle. A truly capable markeman can make any rifle perform to its potential, or give a reasonably accurate diagnosis of why that rifle won't.
Building a 22LR can make sense for specific applications, ones that are dependent upon enhanced accuracy requirements. But training is not one of those requirements.
Training is not about enviable accuracy, but rather, it's about performance that accurately reflects the shooter's true performance. As long as the rifle's perfomance will consistently reflect the shooter's daily level of proficiency, it's doing its job admirably.
It's not about whether the shooter can best another shooter's performance, it's about besting their own, and nobody elese's. If the shooter is having a good day, thats important to know, and vice versa.
It has nothing to do with overall absolute group size, it has everything to do with current group size compared to previous.
Greg
Good marksmanship skills should not be in any way dependent on, or relative to, a particular rifle's ergonomics, etc. Imposing such requirements are sorta like imposing a handicap on the learning/training process.
It's easier to shoot a tuned, pampered rifle. A truly capable markeman can make any rifle perform to its potential, or give a reasonably accurate diagnosis of why that rifle won't.
Building a 22LR can make sense for specific applications, ones that are dependent upon enhanced accuracy requirements. But training is not one of those requirements.
Training is not about enviable accuracy, but rather, it's about performance that accurately reflects the shooter's true performance. As long as the rifle's perfomance will consistently reflect the shooter's daily level of proficiency, it's doing its job admirably.
It's not about whether the shooter can best another shooter's performance, it's about besting their own, and nobody elese's. If the shooter is having a good day, thats important to know, and vice versa.
It has nothing to do with overall absolute group size, it has everything to do with current group size compared to previous.
Greg
Re: "Trainer" gun
You could get into a Savage 12 FV or 10 FP for under $600. The .223 round will provide the range capability, within reason, of your .300 and you'll also have a great varmint/paper puncher when you're done.
You could get into a Savage 12 FV or 10 FP for under $600. The .223 round will provide the range capability, within reason, of your .300 and you'll also have a great varmint/paper puncher when you're done.
Re: "Trainer" gun
I concur totally. I found that as long as my rifles fit me (not shooting some itsy bitsy child model), it improves my overall ability. Fundamentals of marksmanship is whats important.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good marksmanship skills should not be in any way dependent on, or relative to, a particular rifle's ergonomics, etc. Imposing such requirements are sorta like imposing a handicap on the learning/training process.
It's easier to shoot a tuned, pampered rifle. A truly capable markeman can make any rifle perform to its potential, or give a reasonably accurate diagnosis of why that rifle won't.
Building a 22LR can make sense for specific applications, ones that are dependent upon enhanced accuracy requirements. But training is not one of those requirements.
Training is not about enviable accuracy, but rather, it's about performance that accurately reflects the shooter's true performance. As long as the rifle's perfomance will consistently reflect the shooter's daily level of proficiency, it's doing its job admirably.
It's not about whether the shooter can best another shooter's performance, it's about besting their own, and nobody elese's. If the shooter is having a good day, thats important to know, and vice versa.
It has nothing to do with overall absolute group size, it has everything to do with current group size compared to previous.
Greg </div></div>
I concur totally. I found that as long as my rifles fit me (not shooting some itsy bitsy child model), it improves my overall ability. Fundamentals of marksmanship is whats important.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good marksmanship skills should not be in any way dependent on, or relative to, a particular rifle's ergonomics, etc. Imposing such requirements are sorta like imposing a handicap on the learning/training process.
It's easier to shoot a tuned, pampered rifle. A truly capable markeman can make any rifle perform to its potential, or give a reasonably accurate diagnosis of why that rifle won't.
Building a 22LR can make sense for specific applications, ones that are dependent upon enhanced accuracy requirements. But training is not one of those requirements.
Training is not about enviable accuracy, but rather, it's about performance that accurately reflects the shooter's true performance. As long as the rifle's perfomance will consistently reflect the shooter's daily level of proficiency, it's doing its job admirably.
It's not about whether the shooter can best another shooter's performance, it's about besting their own, and nobody elese's. If the shooter is having a good day, thats important to know, and vice versa.
It has nothing to do with overall absolute group size, it has everything to do with current group size compared to previous.
Greg </div></div>
Re: "Trainer" gun
another thing with the .22 cal is that the recoil and blast don't mask mistakes, another thing that helps is to get an experienced friend to watch very closely what u are doing. eg are you flinching are ur eyes closing or moving as u take the shot are u slapping the trigger are you following through is your breathing properly all basic fundamentals but can be overlooked without feedback
if you cant get a friend set up a camera and watch what you do immediately afterwoods
hope this helps
another thing with the .22 cal is that the recoil and blast don't mask mistakes, another thing that helps is to get an experienced friend to watch very closely what u are doing. eg are you flinching are ur eyes closing or moving as u take the shot are u slapping the trigger are you following through is your breathing properly all basic fundamentals but can be overlooked without feedback
if you cant get a friend set up a camera and watch what you do immediately afterwoods
hope this helps
Re: "Trainer" gun
I agree that I don't need to build a replica of my .300. I guess what I am trying to put together is a gun that I can shoot a ton without breaking the bank. All of the comments that were made about being an accurate marksman, I agree with. More trigger time, was the reason for getting a .22 or .223. I thought it would be nice to have it fit similar to my big bore rifle.
I agree that I don't need to build a replica of my .300. I guess what I am trying to put together is a gun that I can shoot a ton without breaking the bank. All of the comments that were made about being an accurate marksman, I agree with. More trigger time, was the reason for getting a .22 or .223. I thought it would be nice to have it fit similar to my big bore rifle.
Re: "Trainer" gun
I have a 10/22 for training while competing with a .308. The gun is not relevant....the trainer should be "inexpensive" to build and shoot....which depends on your definition of inexpensive. Using your skills to practice and get better should be the goal. My .308 was over $3500 and $1.75 per round....10/22 was $900 and pennies to shoot. Also, both scopes are mil/mil, MRAD, and FFP. This helps with commonality. Vortex PST on the .308 and a BSA on the .22
I have a 10/22 for training while competing with a .308. The gun is not relevant....the trainer should be "inexpensive" to build and shoot....which depends on your definition of inexpensive. Using your skills to practice and get better should be the goal. My .308 was over $3500 and $1.75 per round....10/22 was $900 and pennies to shoot. Also, both scopes are mil/mil, MRAD, and FFP. This helps with commonality. Vortex PST on the .308 and a BSA on the .22
Re: "Trainer" gun
I suggest a 22, although I think the 223 is a lot more fun. Even the 17hmr is more fun, but the windage and the long barrel time of the 22 really requires expert skill to master. 1050fps 22 ammo gets blown around over an inch at 100 yards with even a moderate 5mph half value breeze. It is kinda fun to see the trace, see the miss, rack another round quickly, hold off accordingly and score a 2nd round hit.
I think a dot drill is much, much tougher with a 22 than any centerfire.
The long barrel time absolutely requires a perfect trigger pull and follow through. These obviously translate into better iverall fundamentals of marksmanship.
By the way, I rarely exit a 22 session feeling rewarded, though I know I have undoubtedly improved my marksmanship.
I suggest a 22, although I think the 223 is a lot more fun. Even the 17hmr is more fun, but the windage and the long barrel time of the 22 really requires expert skill to master. 1050fps 22 ammo gets blown around over an inch at 100 yards with even a moderate 5mph half value breeze. It is kinda fun to see the trace, see the miss, rack another round quickly, hold off accordingly and score a 2nd round hit.
I think a dot drill is much, much tougher with a 22 than any centerfire.
The long barrel time absolutely requires a perfect trigger pull and follow through. These obviously translate into better iverall fundamentals of marksmanship.
By the way, I rarely exit a 22 session feeling rewarded, though I know I have undoubtedly improved my marksmanship.
Similar threads
