On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:43:47 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx

It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't
want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber.

===

Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:14:53 -0400, Harrold wrote:

Thanks to O'Bama's help, Scott should enjoy another term as Gov. of the
great state of Florida.

===

I hope so. At least we know where Scott stands and he's been
consistent. Crist is like a leaf blowing in the wind, and being
politically indebdted to the M&M guys is a scary thought.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:18:00 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:43:47 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx

It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't
want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber.

===

Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/18/14 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:17:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Oh, how did Scott avoid indictment? A "deal" was made between his
lawyers, and there was an agreement to pay a huge fine.

Something like 3 times what they say he took.



In the good old days, you could have bought all of SW Florida swampland for that.


Yup, before the Fed's devalued the currency so much.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't
want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed.

When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to
choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting?
Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry,
along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left
eye without much problem.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't
want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed.

When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to
choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting?
Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry,
along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left
eye without much problem.

===

If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance
vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however.

On 10/18/14 9:31 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't
want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed.

When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to
choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting?
Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry,
along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left
eye without much problem.


It really pains me to offer up a solution to any problems raised in this
cesspool of a newsgroup, especially to you, but...

You probably should get the distance vision in the right eye.

Then to shoot with iron sights, what you need is a reading glass RX for
the right eye that lets you see the rifle's two sights and you'll be
able to use your left eye for distance vision at the target. It takes a
little bit to get used to it, but it does work and you just end up
shooting with both eyes open.

I need 1.50 reading glasses for my eyes. So, I bought a pair of $10 1.50
readers at the drug store and knocked out the left lens. My right eye
with the 1.50 lens sees the rear and front sight on the rifle (or
handgun), and the left eye focuses on the target. I can shoot very very
tight groups with the metal sights on my pistols and with the metal
sights on my rifles. I now have 2 MOA red dots on my AR15 and Win 92,
and with red dots you also shoot with both eyes open. No reading glasses
needed.

I shared this idea with my gunsmith buddy, who didn't believe it until
he tried it. He was going to pop for a $450 pair of hybrid Rx shooting
glasses, but solved his vision problem with $10 readers. Now, he's going
to bead blast my Ruger revolver and a few other tasks at no charge.




--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't
want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed.

When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to
choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting?
Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry,
along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left
eye without much problem.

===

If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance
vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however.

I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance
vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is
more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or
the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the
target. I do better with my left eye however.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:46:28 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:


Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope.
At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently
without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can
shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring.

I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes
aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy
shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the
M-14. I was very good with it.

In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for
familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local
laterite pit and practiced on beer cans.

===

A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts
or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is
sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course.

This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton
at 50 yards:

http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K

I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked.
The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position
I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring.

I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't
want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed.

When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to
choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting?
Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry,
along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left
eye without much problem.

The question you need to answer is do I want to watch TV or do I want to
drive a car? Drive a car distance, watch TV near distance. If you are
specifically talking about shooting you need to state whether you are
right handed or left handed and that will determine which eye you should
get fixed to enable you to see the front sight.

Thanks, Bill. I said in the previous I was right handed. The eye that
needs work is the right eye. So the choice is - a clear front sight or
a clear target.

My left eye is still good for distance.