Good beginner rifle?

[Gunny1]

For under $400 with scope, I too vote for a stock 10/22.

You can always "trick it out" at a later time. Also 22 ammo is still reasonably priced, as opposed to 223, 30-06, etc.

 

[3rdRcn]

Gonna jump in here as well.

I recommend you read E. Shells' posts again as he has given some very sound advise. The AR is NOT a weapon for a beginner, shooting an AR proficiently takes many many hours of practice and the discipline of an experienced shooter. If you don't have a very good instructor and a few weeks of 8 hour per day training from that good instructor then you're learning curve will be quite long in the AR platform and you will probably develop some very bad habits. If you are going to start in the .223 caliber then I would recommend a nice bolt rifle, which will be hard to find in your price range.

I like the CZ452 for a very accurate out of the box .22 for under 400.00, last time I checked. There are a number of very nice .22's for less than that out there that will shoot very well out of the box and get you started. I know many shooters, including myself, who go back to the .22 when we need to work on our breathing and trigger control without it costing us $1.00+ per shot. Every collection should have a few .22's in it and you are well advised to start yours with one.

As always, good postings Ed!

 

[joppaj]

Truth be told, this is the reason for my desire for a .22 bolt rifle. When my friend took me to try his tricked out .308's, it was a blast but we both knew I was out of my league and didn't have the knowledge to use the weapon well. We tried the Savage Mark II more recently and I was really happy with the gun, and the fact that ammo was only a few cents a round for good ammo as opposed to a buck a shot.

 

[novus collectus]

I'm having a hard time telling if some of you guys are J/K.

Really Novus, a 7.62x54R carbine for a person new to shooting? That's just mean. Those rifles are notorious for their ugly trigger pulls, heavy muzzle blast, impressive fireball and recoil, and can hard to shoot well even for experienced shooters.

There is much more to learning to shoot well than slamming one's eyes shut and yanking the trigger, but that's where starting with too much gun always goes. If the definition of "shooting" is just standing 50 yards from a berm and shooting at 5 gallon buckets, maybe this is somehow a good choice, but it otherwise increases the learning curve exponentially. Even on a raw economic level, the .22 is still a better choice. It is FAR better to avoid bad habits than to try to break them later.

The OP never mentioned hunting and/or minimum power levels, simply that they wished to learn to shoot. I assume they meant to learn to shoot with some degree of proficiency, and then there is always the possibility they might wish to enjoy the experience. The single most effective method of doing this is to learn on something that is free of unnecessary distraction until principles of basic marksmanship are mastered. Mastering the basics, then mastering the environmental influences, are the only way to becoming a rifleman, and the .22 is a proven way to do just that. Even master shooters return to the .22 for reinforcement of basics and recreational shooting.

Again, bad habits that are ingrained early will stand in the way of progress for a LONG time and will seriously limit a shooters potential until they are conquered. As a person who has instructed dozens of new shooters, and helped dozens more into long range precision, I can state with utter confidence that a new shooter, free of bad habits, will go much farther, much faster, than an experienced shooter who carries bad habits like flinching and anticipation of recoil. A person can buy all the equipment they want and call themselves whatever they like, but when they do not have a firm grip on smoothly executing the fundamentals and performing the basics well, there will always be a glass ceiling.

Proof of how serious this problem can be is in the number and volume of articles oriented toward "curing flinch" and eliminating "recoil anticipation":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=curing+flinch&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eliminating+recoil+anticipation&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

I am not a great shooter and maybe the reason why are the points you made above because my first rifle was a 30-06 M1903 Springfield with the metal butt plate.
I never did become an accurate shooter, but I did learn the hard way not to worry about the recoil and I never developed the lasting flinch.....but I am a big boy and like my shoulder slammed.
Wrong advice or not, I suggested the Mosin based on my own personal experience. I am really just a plinker though.

 

[trickg]

The AR is NOT a weapon for a beginner, shooting an AR proficiently takes many many hours of practice and the discipline of an experienced shooter. If you don't have a very good instructor and a few weeks of 8 hour per day training from that good instructor then you're learning curve will be quite long in the AR platform and you will probably develop some very bad habits. If you are going to start in the .223 caliber then I would recommend a nice bolt rifle, which will be hard to find in your price range.

Um, how about 8 days of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in Army Basic training - after all, we're talking about a real M-16, which is essentially the same thing. I knew guys in basic training who had never fired a real gun in their lives who shot expert after BRM.

Something that always seems to surprise me is the idea that marksmanship is this arcane art that takes years of training and discipline to master. Baloney. My wife on her very first day of shooting out-shot me twice. (It should be noted that I was not having a good day and she was having an exceptional day - it has never happened since and that was in 1993) As long as the gun is decent, the basic fundamentals for practical accuracy and marksmanship (and I'm not talking long distance rifle shooting where there really is a science to it - I'm talking about practical accuracy while plinking at cans and such, or shooting from the 25' line at a range) are a pretty basic set of principles:

1.) Hold steady while aligning the sights properly
2.) Steadily and smoothly press the trigger while maintaining sight alignment.

A good starter rifle could mean a lot of things though. Some might think that a used Marlin 336 .30-30 outfitted with a scope would be a good starter rifle. Some might think that a bolt action .22 with iron sights would be good. A lot of it depends on the end goal. If you eventually want to hunt with it, a .22 might not be a good rifle. I also like semi-auto .22 rifles, although by far my favorite .22 rifle was an old (late 40s, early 50s) Marlin Model 39A lever action. It held plenty of rounds and was as accurate as I needed it to be.

Personally I think that it would be hard to beat a Ruger 10/22 as a starter rifle. They are easy to use, reliable and accurate, and can be had brand new in the box for $199. Ammo is cheap, recoil is a non-issue, and they are small and light enough that basic fundamentals can become consistent without bad habits creeping in.

 

[joppaj]

Um, how about 8 days of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in Army Basic training - after all, we're talking about a real M-16, which is essentially the same thing. I knew guys in basic training who had never fired a real gun in their lives who shot expert after BRM.

I think that's the big point here. They came in with no bad habits and they payed close attention to their instructors, did as they were told and learned how to shoot. Could they hang with our long range shooters after that 8 days, of course not, but they had a good foundation if they (or the Army) decide to pursue it.

I also suspect that what 3rdRcn may be alluding to here is a difference in culture between the Army and The Marines. With all due respect to both camps and from an outsider, Marines are well known for thier dedication to marksmenship. I would suspect that a Marine recruit gets considerably more trigger time than his Army counterpart. I may be dead wrong about that, but that is what I've been led to believe.

 

[E.Shell]

Um, how about 8 days of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in Army Basic training - after all, we're talking about a real M-16, which is essentially the same thing. I knew guys in basic training who had never fired a real gun in their lives who shot expert after BRM.

But this is based on an 80% success rate shooting prone at targets that are 2 feet wide and 3 feet tall out to (some branches) 500 meters . . . with a rifle, a very flat shooting rifle, with sights . . .

The same rifle/ammo/sight combination is almost capable of all head shots (2 MOA) at that range, yet all body hits will net this coveted "Expert" rating. Mmm, OK. There is a reason that some 25,000 rounds are fired for every dead enemy, and it is not because someone learned good basic marksmanship skills in boot camp. We could easily contrast that statistic with the designated marksmen who both differ mainly by marksmanship training standards and success ratio.

Something that always seems to surprise me is the idea that marksmanship is this arcane art that takes years of training and discipline to master. Baloney.

Not really such an elusive art, and my posts above are not intended to make it appear thus, but there are definitely ways to make it harder, and ways to limit results to "merely adequate". By contrast, the same person often has the capability to excel with a good start and coaching.

My wife on her very first day of shooting out-shot me twice. (It should be noted that I was not having a good day and she was having an exceptional day - it has never happened since and that was in 1993)

One would wonder is she doesn't actually prove the point. On her first outing, she had no bad habits and did exceptionally well, but has since learned a few and now cannot duplicate her early results? Hmmmm. . . As I had posted above, it is much easier to get a new shooter shooting well than trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I find women to generally have great shooting skills, as long as they are not intimidated by the firearm and begin to flinch.

As long as the gun is decent, the basic fundamentals for practical accuracy and marksmanship (and I'm not talking long distance rifle shooting where there really is a science to it - I'm talking about practical accuracy while plinking at cans and such, or shooting from the 25' line at a range) are a pretty basic set of principles:

Certainly, there is "shooting", and then there is "shooting". Cans at 25' are a relatively large rifle target, and there is certainly nothing wrong with setting our standards at a comfortable level. But, what if we raise the bar, and add the realization that most firearms, rifle and handgun, can be capable of placing all of their shots into a target no bigger than the size of a bottle cap at the same 25' distance? Then, what would our limiting factor actually be? Marksmanship. This is roughly the equivalent of head shots on squirrels, which many skilled hunters make at 50 or more yards, so it is by no means unusual or unreasonable.

1.) Hold steady while aligning the sights properly
2.) Steadily and smoothly press the trigger while maintaining sight alignment.

Add "3. Follow through", which is where our flinch can be most detrimental to success.

All of these relatively simple tasks are learned skills, and can be made easier or harder by the way we learn and execute them.

A good starter rifle could mean a lot of things though. Some might think that a used Marlin 336 .30-30 outfitted with a scope would be a good starter rifle. Some might think that a bolt action .22 with iron sights would be good. A lot of it depends on the end goal. If you eventually want to hunt with it, a .22 might not be a good rifle. I also like semi-auto .22 rifles, although by far my favorite .22 rifle was an old (late 40s, early 50s) Marlin Model 39A lever action. It held plenty of rounds and was as accurate as I needed it to be.

If "starter" were prefaced by "hunting", then I'd be inclined to agree with the Marlin .30-30, but, there are sometimes compromises that are unsatisfactory. To attempt this compromise and try to begin shooting well with a hunting rifle does not make it impossible, but it does not make it easy, and we might see our shooter carry "scars" from this experience that keeps him hitting cans at 25 feet, but excludes him from hitting squirrels at 150 feet.

My own first rifle was a K98 in 8mm, and while I could "shoot" it as a kid, I could never really "shoot" it. It will not take many "ball & dummy" drills to graphically demonstrate that many people who think they are shooting their heavy hitters without a flinch are actually slamming eyes shut and jerking triggers, often to the point of resembling an affliction.

The other issue that is often overlooked is that good control is much easier to achieve under controlled conditions, such as on the rifle range. When we shoot under these conditions, it is quite easy to consciously watch ourselves and try to prevent flinching and anticipation or even changing grip pressure as we release a shot. Things change under hunting conditions or under match pressure, often drastically, and our truly ingrained behaviors often surface, no matter how carefully repressed on the casual range day. We tend to overlook our meticulous methods and focus on the more stressful aspects at hand, usually at the expense of our improperly ingrained marksmanship skills.

This phenomenon is what makes dry firing so important. A good friend runs a tactical shooting school and trains many police and guys headed for the sandbox. He teaches shooting under stressful and less than ideal conditions, where we will sink to our level of training, NOT rise to the occasion. When we chat, he invariably asks me "How many times have you dry fired today?", because it is such a valuable tool to help avoid our natural tendency to flinch when we experience flashes and loud noises at close proximity to our faces.

Personally I think that it would be hard to beat a Ruger 10/22 as a starter rifle. They are easy to use, reliable and accurate, and can be had brand new in the box for $199. Ammo is cheap, recoil is a non-issue, and they are small and light enough that basic fundamentals can become consistent without bad habits creeping in.

Agreed 100%.

I don't maintain that everyone must be or can be Annie Oakley, but who is satisfied with less than their best? Who is happy hitting one out of three that come right over the plate, or catching one out of three fly balls?

 

[novus collectus]

....
I don't maintain that everyone must be or can be Annie Oakley, but who is satisfied with less than their best? Who is happy hitting one out of three that come right over the plate, or catching one out of three fly balls?

K.I.S.S.....me pull trigger.... gun go boom.... me happy.

But seriously, I wish I was a good shooter, but just in case I hunt some day, as long as I will be good enough to hit a deer in the right spot at 100 yards using iron sights I am happy for now. I would like to be good enough to hit a mountain goat at 500 yards in Alaska someday though.

 

[zombiehunter]

hey i was hitting clays with my 91/30 at the berm on the pistol range at the FBS on my 3rd shot ever with the thing

 

[E.Shell]

hey i was hitting clays with my 91/30 at the berm on the pistol range at the FBS on my 3rd shot ever with the thing

I rest my case. . .

 

[trickg]

Ed, no real disagreements with you - my only thought was that the M-16 (AR-15) really isn't that complicated of a rifle - either to maintain, or shoot accurately. I don't disagree a bit with your comments about BRM in Basic Training - for every guy who shoots expert, you have most of the rest of the company somewhere between 23 (the bare minimum when I went to BT) and 30 out of 40 pop up targets.

I've been a good shot since I started shooting at an early age. Then again, I was taught to shoot by someone who really knew their business behind any gun, be it rifle, pistol or shotgun, and was also a certified instructor at one point. I started shooting with a .22 and when my Dad felt I was good enough, he moved me up to an M1 Carbine so that I could get used to shooting something with a tad more recoil. The first .22 I spent any real amount of time with was a Browning .22. (Shown below) It was short, light, accurate, and a ton of fun to shoot...right up until the tube broke off in the stock, which apparently was a problem with the earlier ones. At that point I moved to the Marlin 39A and never looked back.

When I was first learning, it was just a whole lotta plinking at cans and any other smallish object. One of my Dad's favorite instructional methods was out at this gravel/magnitia pit we'd go to. Magnitia is a chalky, magnesium rich ore that's used in dirt road "paving" in SW Nebraska. Magnitia tends to break off in clods, so Dad would pick one between the size of a baseball and softball and tell me to shoot it until it broke apart. Then he'd have me shoot the pieces, moving from larger to smaller, and he'd call out corrections if I missed. "Just over it." "Just a bit low." "That was low and to the right." etc. That way not only was I dialing in my point of aim, but it's always more fun to shoot a target that actually does something when the bullet hits it rather than just shooting holes in paper.

With aluminum cans, a .22 fired from a rifle will pass through so fast that the can won't even move, so I got to where I'd actually aim for the rims so that when I did hit it, it would jump.

I've never thought too much about follow through - most flinch problems I have seen or experienced myself occur prior to the actual firing of the cartridge.

Regarding shooting accuracy, your posts weren't the ones I was referring to specifically - it seems to be a recurring theme that accurate marksmanship is something that can only be achieved by a few, and that it's a difficult thing to master, and I have always believed that practical accuracy is not really that difficult unless you are dealing with a bad habit like a flinch, a bad trigger pull or a bad grip.

I don't disagree with your response to my comments on the .30-30 either - but many people don't have the financial luxury of buying multiple guns - ones to learn on and then ones to hunt with, which is why I suggested an all-around of a lever action .30-30. My personal thought on learning to shoot is that when the fundamentals are being learned, much like anything else, more is better - the more you have the gun to your shoulder, the more comfortable you are going to get with the action of shooting and shooting accurately, so to that end, a good starter rifle would be a .22, just so long as you weren't planning on hunting and don't have the budget to buy a hunting rifle when the time comes.

Here's a pic of a Browning .22 rifle like the one I started on.

 

[CHASER]

Get your ar now with a 22lr conversion kit go low power than high power

 

[3rdRcn]

Someone in the marching band gonna tell me about markmanship.

Seriously trickg, you are way off base there my man. Markmanship is in fact a very disciplined skill that is learned through many many hours of practice. How many man size targets did you shoot out at 500 yards in your army qualification? Never mind, I think Ed covered it pretty well.


When someone asks about a first rifle then I am inclined to tell them to learn on something that will not induce bad habits as some of the firearms that were recommended WILL do. Think about basic markmanship and an AR. First you line the sight post up so that the tip is centered down the middle and across the sides, then you breath, then you let that breath out half way and squeeze the trigger, all the while keeping the front sight centered until it goes off. A bit overwhelming for a new shooter, don't you think?

Oh, just so you know, I am a certified instructor.

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

Im not a certified instructor but as an NCO I think that certifies me as a teacher,and I think that one of the most negative things about teaching a new shooter is to try to convince him that a rifle is above his wildest dreams of ever learning. If somebody wants to start on an AR than that can definetly be done and if he wants to start on a .22 that is better for learning to shoot definetly but an AR is not anywhere near as counter productive than your first pistol beeing a Raging bull or a Desert eagle.
Lets not forget that thousands of people learn to shoot on M16's every year and although 90% of them (or more maybe) never advance much skill wise they definetly get it down pretty quickly and a good portion of them do it once or twice a year beyond that point

 

[trickg]

Someone in the marching band gonna tell me about markmanship.

Seriously trickg, you are way off base there my man. Markmanship is in fact a very disciplined skill that is learned through many many hours of practice. How many man size targets did you shoot out at 500 yards in your army qualification? Never mind, I think Ed covered it pretty well.

When someone asks about a first rifle then I am inclined to tell them to learn on something that will not induce bad habits as some of the firearms that were recommended WILL do. Think about basic markmanship and an AR. First you line the sight post up so that the tip is centered down the middle and across the sides, then you breath, then you let that breath out half way and squeeze the trigger, all the while keeping the front sight centered until it goes off. A bit overwhelming for a new shooter, don't you think?

Oh, just so you know, I am a certified instructor.

Just because I was a bandsman for the US Army has nothing to do with who I am as a marksman. I grew up in a house with 100+ guns with a father who was a gunsmith, a certified instructor and a trophy winning competition marksman. I was shooting from the time I was old enough to and although the old man always managed to edge me out, I wasn't that far behind and even managed to outshoot him from time to time. I have never competed, but I probably could have at one point if I hadn't centered my attention and efforts on music. So yeah, I think I'm as qualified as anyone to add a thing or two about marksmanship.

As for that certification of yours, I know plenty of "certified" DBAs who don't know squat about practical database administration - it only means that they went through the coursework and earned the cert - it doesn't mean they are any good. What category do you fall into?

Getting back to the AR, did I EVER say that it was an "ideal" gun to start with? Nope - not once. I merely pointed out that thousands, and possibly millions of soldiers and Marines have learned basic, practical marksmanship with one over the last 40+ years it has been used by the US Military, and most of those folks learned how to shoot it, many of them never having fired a real gun before in their lives, in a matter of days.

My posting was done toward practical marksmanship, and it's not as difficult as you are making it out to be. When I talk about practical marksmanship, I'm talking about hitting center mass with a handgun at a silhouette target at 25 feet, or being able to make a clean kill with a rifle at 100-150 yards. Who the hell other than a competition marksman or Marine needs to worry about hitting anything with iron sights out as far as 500 yards? That's not practical accuracy, and yes, I agree - IF you want to be able to shoot like that, it takes time, practice, knowledge and discipline - that's shooting that I am fully capable of, just so you know. Just because it was never required of me doesn't mean I can't do it.

There's always someone who wants to throw extremes into the picture on thread like this, and there simply is no need for it. The original poster was asking about a good starter rifle. Someone suggested an AR - not MY idea of a good starter rifle either, (ref: My comments about .22s and possibly a lever .30-30) but I did think it important to point out that millions have learned how to use them in a relatively short period of time - a point that seemed to be missed prior to my bringing it up.

 

[Russ D]

My suggestion would be one of those bolt action Savage .22's Dicks carries. They are very accurate and the whole pakage runs around 330$. I believe they have adjustable triggers and pretty laminate stocks. The last thing I'd do is put a 200$ scope on a stock 10/22. While they are great fun they are almost never great out of the box shooters. Now if you whant to learn how to shoot open sights then they are plenty acurate enough to learn basic marksmanship. E.Shell is making great sense in this thread.

 

[rrrrrrkevin]

but just to be clear I think you should go with the 10/22 out because its cheaper and it can make a 1 hour range trip into an all day thing! and to be even more clear its not a real 10/22 unless its water cooled and sits on a tripod lol

 

[weldingshop]

I bought a Remmington 597 .22 with the scope on it......awesome little gun. I think I paid $170 bucks@Dick's.. Real quite, super cheap to shoot, and it's a nice little rifle. Check one out. and you don't need to worry about the bullet flying like 3miles away. A 223 is a bit much for a beginner inmo, but if your gonna seek a range and help talk to someone.

 

[trickg]

Certainly, there is "shooting", and then there is "shooting". Cans at 25' are a relatively large rifle target, and there is certainly nothing wrong with setting our standards at a comfortable level. But, what if we raise the bar, and add the realization that most firearms, rifle and handgun, can be capable of placing all of their shots into a target no bigger than the size of a bottle cap at the same 25' distance? Then, what would our limiting factor actually be? Marksmanship. This is roughly the equivalent of head shots on squirrels, which many skilled hunters make at 50 or more yards, so it is by no means unusual or unreasonable.

How about prairie dogs 250+ yards? Dad and I used to hit prairie dogs as far out as low 300s - granted, it was using a scoped rifles, but that kind of shooting requires a basic knowledge of trajectories, windage and elevation on top of having solid shooting fundamentals - a small twich or flinch turns into being inches and even feet off of the mark at 300 yards, which is a sure fire miss on a prairie dog at that distance. We never dialed in any dope on our prairie dog excursions, as in actual clicks on the scope for elevation or windage. We fired based on estimated distance, wind speed and direction, and drop/rise, so all adjustments were made by adjusting where we placed the crosshairs in the scope, (i.e., "Kentucky windage") and we hit more often than we missed. If we did miss, it wasn't by much.

3rdRcn - I should probably point out that I don't doubt you know your stuff, but I hate it when someone is condescending toward me about guns and shooting because they see me as a musician due to my time in the Army band program.

 

[fivepointstar]

I have zero rifle experience, and would like to buy a 'starter' rifle this spring. Nothing fancy, preferably under 400 bucks including a scope if possible. I would not be shooting past 200 yards, at least no time soon. My goal is to become proficient then get an AR 15 in a couple years (If they are still around!).

I think we're getting off topic here.

1. he wants a starter rifle!! he doesn't want to be a deerslayer, Alvin York or Vasily Zeitsev (sp)

2. Under $400 including scope: if there is an AR on hte market for $400 with scope PLEASE let me know. IMHO....buy the scope later. Learn the fundamentals first with open sights @ 25 yrds, 50 yrds then 100 yrds. Then buy a scope....then go out to 200 yrds

I've to this day have never used a scope but hte farthest I've shot is an AR from 200yds. This is what i plan on doing this spring, learning to use a scope.

3. His goal is to become proficient (with his beginners rifle) and then get an AR From reading his post...he wants to LEARN the right way.

I still recommend a .22 bolt but if he thinks the 10/22 is best thats also a good choice but learn the IS

btw...I am not a firearms instructor but I have enrolled for the Rifle Instructors schools this month at BCG&F. I encourage anyone else interested to join me.