Like many New Englanders I have a Remington model 760 .30-06 rifle topped with a peep sight. A classic north woods deer rifle. Along with my deer rifle I also own a .50 cal inline muzzleloader. Unlike many, I do not own a small caliber or rimfire. No .22LR. No 22-250. No .17 HMR. Which is why my rifle shooting has taken a down turn. The club where I currently shoot has a 50 yard range with caliber restrictions. Pistols, rifles shooting pistol caliber's, rimfire, and muzzleloaders are allowed, but bottle necked ammo is forbidden. So as of late the .50 cal has gotten warmed up, but the .30-06 has only seen the odd day shooting over friends property up north. It's easy to see how this can add up to a diminished skill set, and my rifle shooting has suffered.
Shooting both my rifle and my muzzleloader has introduced me to a whole new set of skills to be learned; shooting off sticks. My old shooting club had benches designed for rifle shooting. My new club does not, nor does my friends property, so I have had to learn how to shoot off of sticks.
.30-06, off sticks @ 65 yards. I pushed the first round to the right before settling in. There is still some straightening out to be done.
I've been considering a rimfire rifle, for plinking and to be able to do more rifle shooting at the club, for some time, now. Of the rimfire caliber's the .17 HMR has been on my radar more than any other. The .17, while smaller than a .22, packs more of a punch and is an extremely efficient small game cartridge. While the cost of shooting a .17 for plinking may be a bit more expensive than a .22, I feel the efficiency of the round outweighs the cost. I don't mind spending a bit more on a round with better ballistics, and the ability to be accurately shot beyond 250 yards.
New Calibre
Though I had been aware of the efficiency of the .17 HMR, I had never had an opportunity to shoot one until my most recent trip to England. It was then that I knew I absolutely needed to get myself a .17 HMR. The .17 is a pleasure to shoot, zipping a bullet out with almost zero recoil. Along with the .17 I got to shoot another lesser known caliber; the .204. Here in the US .22, ..22-250, and .223 are the most widely used small calibers. I had never heard of a .204 caliber, and was keen to give it a go. Unlike the .17 the .204 had some recoil when you pulled the trigger; not enough to put anyone off, but just enough to let you know you're shooting a rifle. Not being familiar with small caliber rifles I am told shooting the .204 is very similar to shooting a .22-250.
The .204, using a bipod, off a tailgate @ 75 yards. Each small square in 1 inch. I have a tendency to push rounds to the right.
New Optics
The hunting laws in England differ considerably from those in the US. One such difference it the ability to illuminate small game, with artificial light, while hunting at night. Night hunting means various styles of night vision optics are common, and I was able to experience shooting with night vision optics for the first time. The .17 HMR was topped with a digital IR scope. This scope is somewhat trickier to use than a conventional scope, and requires familiarization. Being digital I found the image to be somewhat blurry until the rifle is held very still. The slightest motion would blur the image again, which would sharpen up once the rifle was steadied again. At night the mode could be changed from daylight to night, and the IR switched on allowing a clear view of the target in the dark. In fact, I think this type of scope my be easier to use in the dark, than in the daylight.
The optics on the .204 were more conventional, but with a high powered light throwing a colored beam mounted along side of it. For the first time user I found this much easier to use. Unfortunately neither of these scopes have much use here in the US, as not many (any?) states allow illumination.
Suppression
In addition to new calibers, and new optics I was able to shoot a sound moderated rifle for the first time. Unlike the way Hollywood portrays "silencers" moderators/suppressors do not completely muffle the sound of the report. The report of the .17 HMR was such that wearing hearing protection is not necessary. The gun still let out a good crack, but at a lowered decibel level. The moderated .204 let out a bit more of a crack, and being that we were shooting off of the tailgate of a truck (with a cap) we wore hearing protection because the sound was reverberating back on us. Should we have been shooting off a bench or sticks in the open hearing protection would not have been needed. Again there was an audible crack, loud enough that heads around you would turn in your direction, but far from startling.
So what is next? I am shopping for a .17 HMR. Being a rimfire I can shoot it at my club, which gets me more trigger time, and this winter I can (should the motivation strike me) use it shoot spot and stalk rabbits in the snow.
No comments:
Post a Comment