All About Pocket Knives

What's not to like about a .22.

garddogg56 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:48 pm Very nice assortment Papa I like to get with my Grandkids once a week for sum .22 time

Appreciate it Garddog.

FRJ wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:40 pm You've got some fine guns there, Smitty.
I had no idea that Daisy made a 22 rifle.

Actually Daisy has made a .22 rifle twice. The one I have was produced for about a year in 1988. It has 10-shot rotary-feed magazine that is very similar to, but not interchangeable with, the Ruger 10/22magazine.

In 1968 Daisy produced a .22 rifle that was called the Daisy VL. It used caseless ammo. It had a 22 caliber bullet that was molded to a small cylinder of formed propellant. It had no primer. The rifle had a cocking lever on the underside that compressed air to a pressure that heated the air and when fired it would propel and ignite the propellant at the same time. The V/L rifles and ammunition were discontinued in 1969 after the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ruled that it constituted a firearm, and Daisy, which was not licensed to manufacture firearms, decided to discontinue manufacture rather than become a firearms manufacturer. About 23,000 were produced before production ceased. Amazingly, a few years ago you could still find the ammo.

If you google Daisy VL there are several videos and info about them. Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6gU1CHj9Xo

Papa Bones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:22 pm

TwoFlowersLuggage wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:17 pm Why didn't the military ever officially adopt a lever action repeating rifle? Were they just not powerful enough for military use? They issued a single shot rifle (the 1873 Trapdoor) until 1892, then replaced it with the Krag. I know there were a lot of "unofficial" repeating rifles used by those that could afford to buy them or capture them. Why didn't they adopt the Henry (1860) or the Winchester (1866, 1873, 1892)?

Politics and cost always seem to be a re-occurring contributor a lot of time in the decisions of Military Arms over the years.

Very true. Don’t forget the ignorance/stupidity of the bureaucrats who make or influence such decisions. When Samuel Colt was trying to sell his recently invented repeating arms (both rifles and handguns) to the military, the prevailing style of warfare was to organize troops into straight rows with single shot muskets, march them out into an open field facing an enemy likewise deployed. (You know the drill).

The military minds of the day, stuck in that paradigm, saw no practical use for a repeating arm. It wasn’t until the onset of fighting Native American “guerrilla warfare” where troops were being slaughtered by an enemy who could accurately fire off 30 arrows in the time it took a soldier to reload his musket, that the military began to see the benefits of what Colt was selling. Even then it wasn’t readily accepted by most senior officers and politicians who had not experienced “Indian” warfare firsthand.

Ken

TwoFlowersLuggage wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:17 pm Why didn't the military ever officially adopt a lever action repeating rifle? Were they just not powerful enough for military use? They issued a single shot rifle (the 1873 Trapdoor) until 1892, then replaced it with the Krag. I know there were a lot of "unofficial" repeating rifles used by those that could afford to buy them or capture them. Why didn't they adopt the Henry (1860) or the Winchester (1866, 1873, 1892)?

Here is an interesting article concerning lever action repeaters for military use, the Winchester model 1895:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1895

Treefarmer

Mumbleypeg wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:28 am

Papa Bones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:22 pm

TwoFlowersLuggage wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:17 pm Why didn't the military ever officially adopt a lever action repeating rifle? Were they just not powerful enough for military use? They issued a single shot rifle (the 1873 Trapdoor) until 1892, then replaced it with the Krag. I know there were a lot of "unofficial" repeating rifles used by those that could afford to buy them or capture them. Why didn't they adopt the Henry (1860) or the Winchester (1866, 1873, 1892)?

Politics and cost always seem to be a re-occurring contributor a lot of time in the decisions of Military Arms over the years.

Very true. Don’t forget the ignorance/stupidity of the bureaucrats who make or influence such decisions. When Samuel Colt was trying to sell his recently invented repeating arms (both rifles and handguns) to the military, the prevailing style of warfare was to organize troops into straight rows with single shot muskets, march them out into an open field facing an enemy likewise deployed. (You know the drill).

The military minds of the day, stuck in that paradigm, saw no practical use for a repeating arm. It wasn’t until the onset of fighting Native American “guerrilla warfare” where troops were being slaughtered by an enemy who could accurately fire off 30 arrows in the time it took a soldier to reload his musket, that the military began to see the benefits of what Colt was selling. Even then it wasn’t readily accepted by most senior officers and politicians who had not experienced “Indian” warfare firsthand.

Ken

"Stupidity is not a handicap in politics."

cudgee wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:40 am

Mumbleypeg wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:28 am

Papa Bones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:22 pm

Politics and cost always seem to be a re-occurring contributor a lot of time in the decisions of Military Arms over the years.

Very true. Don’t forget the ignorance/stupidity of the bureaucrats who make or influence such decisions. When Samuel Colt was trying to sell his recently invented repeating arms (both rifles and handguns) to the military, the prevailing style of warfare was to organize troops into straight rows with single shot muskets, march them out into an open field facing an enemy likewise deployed. (You know the drill).

The military minds of the day, stuck in that paradigm, saw no practical use for a repeating arm. It wasn’t until the onset of fighting Native American “guerrilla warfare” where troops were being slaughtered by an enemy who could accurately fire off 30 arrows in the time it took a soldier to reload his musket, that the military began to see the benefits of what Colt was selling. Even then it wasn’t readily accepted by most senior officers and politicians who had not experienced “Indian” warfare firsthand.

Ken

"Stupidity is not a handicap in politics."

treefarmer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:30 am
Here is an interesting article concerning lever action repeaters for military use, the Winchester model 1895:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1895

Treefarmer

That is a very interesting article. I had forgotten about the Model 1895.

I need to pick y’all’s brains about scopes. I hunt with open sights in the woods, but I think I would be better off with one in the late evening. I can say strait up that a $5-600 scope ain’t going to happen at my hacienda, so all those suggestions are out.

But I’ve been looking at some of the Redfield (made by Leupold) and Vortex scopes. They seem to offer good performance for the price from what I’m reading on other forums. Do any of y’all have experience with either of them? Any suggestions? Any other options in this price range that I should look at?

This will be going on a Marlin lever action if that matters at all. Thanks for the help in advance.

Vortex

Vortex. I have a Vortex Crossfire II. It delivers excellent performance. I have only used it on sunny days, so I have no experience with low light. But I expect it will do better than other scopes at its low price point.

Thanks guys. That’s the bind that I keep hearing about.

Vortex+ Lifetime Guarentee

PigStikr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:35 pm Vortex+ Lifetime Guarentee

That is a good selling point. The only complaint I’ve heard on the Vortex scopes was the shorter eye relief that some of the competitors, mainly Redfield. Have you had any issues with that?

I have been comfortable with the eye relief. But it would be good to check it out.

Wade,
Up front I'm a bit biased concerning Redfield scopes. That's all I've ever used. The 1st one lasted me about 17 years and was still doing the job but optics had improved so much I had to up grade. I now have a Redfield 3X10X50mm on my Rem.700 .243, it does the job very well in the late evening low light conditions. I have a Redfield 2X7 on my M/L rifle and there is also a Redfield on the little Rem. 788 .243 that the grandsons use. I suppose I'm just being loyal to a brand name, seems like most of the name brand rifle scopes will do a good job. You can spend way too much money on a scope right quick!
The original 2X7 Redfield stayed on top of an old Rem.700 30/06 all those years and I never had an issue with it. Some folks find it hard to believe but in all those years I never had to adjust the scope, it held its' "zero" while being used like a tool. Carried on a horse, carried in an airboat, carried on the dashboard, dropped too many times to count and would still shoot the proverbial 3" high at 100 yards. I was shooting the same hand load all those years. The scope was tough for sure but it also speaks of the rings and base or bases one uses when putting optics on a working rifle. Bases and rings will make or break most any scope, in my opinion. I've always used Redfield rings and 1 piece bases and have not experienced any movement. It is my opinion that the see-through mounts that were so popular some time ago were a joke. The lower a scope can be mounted on the rifle the stronger the connection, think leverage, no room for motion, flex, wiggle, etc.
You mentioned eye relief and that is important and is likely controlled by the type of rifle and how much distance you have between the rings to move the ocular lens closer or further from your eye in order to achieve full field of view.
Good luck on your search for the scope that matches your needs!
Treefarmer

Vortex; Very Good Quality-Expensive
Scorpion; Good Quality-Cheap
Hawk; Best of Both Worlds-

i just have one Vortex and it is a long eye relief on a Chief A.J..22 barrel ....

Page 357 of this epic thread needs some .357’s. Show em if you got em

I'll show you mine if you show,,,, well you get the idea. And here is my 357 Sig, a really hot round.

In the last photo, just ignore the bottom gun, a S&W k frame .38 The two above it are Ruger 101s in .357.

Only one I have left is my carry .

66-1 love the versatility of the round and gun.

Comrade Biden is not even sworn in yet and he coming for our sporting rifles.
Gonna be a rough 4 years. Hopefully Americans wake up.

Some great shooters being posted. This is the only 357 I have, Model 19 S & W. Shoots 38 Spec very well. I don't run many magnum loads through it.