Rez
-
Content Count
6,260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Rez
-
Say no more. The wwwabbit has spoken.
-
If it's just superficial mate, I wouldn't worry to much, I know it's hard to think in this mind set being as its your new thing. If it shoots well, accurate and the bolt and trigger are in good working order, it's all good, 350 beans is a steel. It's just a case of finding the right product to get rid of that bit of rust... Again, if it's shooting well, and the BSA lot generally do and the ones I've had in the past, are like tanks, so simple there's hardly anything to go wrong. Give it a good clean everywhere you can and it'll do the job you ask of it, any. I'm guessing it's a field
-
Would that thumb be in .22 or .177 ? You get "far better penetration" with a .177 Rez atb Better feeling with a 22 mind
-
Mac... Do you put your thumb in then? Or just leave it on the rim of the hole?
-
Point taken but there are times that head shots just aren't on. I think its just the beauty of a 22, you get the extra "reassurance" perhaps. Each to there own I taken your views mate.
-
Nice. Looks like a Paul Short jobby off fb. It'll be accurate that, that weight up front will knock off most of the flip.
-
Pianoman will answer this better than most, owning one. For me, and I only ref my 97 set up, pretty much the same apart from looks. Heavy 4-14 Sidewinder and 5.52 Fields man. Bag filler indeed.
-
Smart document mr b. Nothing to do today?
-
Id second this. Its rather annoying as, as you say, Nikon glass is superb, the BDC ret is so very gay. If they'd do a proper nice half mil dot Id have them on all my set ups. The scopes themselves are super quality, real smart. Might get a 4-12 ProStaff on my 7, but again, the only aim points are below the centre, not good on a 22 as you can imagine.
-
What scope is it? Are the turrets exposed? I wonder what an earth your doing with your rifle if your optics are getting so shit up... Ive been crawling on hands and knees before but the optics are kept sound. I use Butler Creek flip ups, but also have large sunshades up front which are for most of the time kept closed until they are needed.
-
Here here. I have had rabbits shot with my HW100, like a definite neck shot, just below the jaw [we all know the clinical accuracy of a 100], and the f*ckers leap up in the air, and bloody leg it about 10 yards as the pellet hasn't delivered enough blow to even shock the animal. Its like they've been stung hard to drop dead a short distance away. Every target shot with my 22 hasnt.
-
Nice man. That's clearly a 22 from looking at the images?
-
Back at it Mac. Good to see.
-
I'm after a Fenman in .22 or .20, must be in mint condition obviously with all the usual key areas in check. Good money waiting for the right example and willing to travel, within reason. I'd like to look closely at the rifle in its wood and out if possible shoot the rifle. Ill also bring my crono for power check. Ideally with vortex mod, but will happily consider Evo mods up front. Tar.
-
Indeed. The post after yours. I'm a better shot with my 22 97 than I am with any of my 177's. I don't know what that's means, but it's kinda nice to know for me. I prefer 22 than 177, even on the course, it's a sweeter round, as accurate as any, and delivers proper whack on game.
-
This rifle... Never seen oat like it
-
That's that then. We'll agree to disagree.
-
Very true. Jairon can also spell and use some punctuation so that puts him ahead of 90% of the buggers on here. (99% in the dog section) Bloody el'... he's like a little flammin shakespeare. O' art; thou, take thou powder cannon un that take conniz up the jac'C WTF am I on about. Waaaay to earlier to be on the sauce.
-
@ Charlie. Its a good point that, but on the other hand, for those who, lets say, are not as accurate as they'd like... The 22 would surely be the better calibre as it hits harder and doesn't have to be so precise? Within reason. Stick it in the boiler room and your more likely to kill than with a 177, maybe. Not that Im condoning body shots, just using it as an example. In a way, a poor shot with a 22, if we're calling it that, is more likely to kill than a poor shot with a 177. I personally think the learning curve with hunting and generally shooting, should be undertaken with a 22,
-
Ive just read that back to myself. Had to come to the study to re write that. Right. Im not saying a 22 shooter is a better shot, what Im trying to say is that... [with PCP's], 177 is the easier round to choose for hitting the target. Naturally, its flight path is much less curved. With a 22, its just about learning your aim points, which most shooters of the 22 calibre do. In the instance of 177 and 22 springers, then there both the same [apart from the tad more recoil, from a standard rifle], but again, with a much less curved trajectory, its perhaps "easier" to hit the intended tar
-
Isn't it the other way round... No Rez - the hard whack of a .22 makes up for being slightly off target. I find .177 absolutely clinical on precise shot placement. Again - through branches and spindle. Without starting a row, I'd say that .177 is for those that want an easy life and as such makes up for the (wrong word here but) skill to shoot with true accuracy. Hence, if a .22 is harder to shoot accurately, then surely those who can shoot accurately a .22 are a better shot than those use always use .177... In my opinion, if you can shoot a .22 accurately, at the usual airgun distances
-
I'd second piano mans post. Can't help be a sucker for the 350 magnum, epic looking rifle. Real smart. Understated. For the record I do mean the short compact professional version.
-
Nicely done.
-
Moooorrreeeee text...
