I have been looking at the M6 Scout .22lr and .410 for a while and I haven't been able to find one but I want to hear what other people have to say about it so what are your thoughts about it?

Views: 218

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Discontinued, and when it can be found, it's sold at much higher prices than it is actually worth. 

That said - it's a nice little combo. Reliable shooter, well built. Lightweight - and the breakdown case is nice. I wish it had more ammo storage, but at least it has some. 

If space and weight are your primary concerns, it's worth looking into. Otherwise - depending on your needs, there are many other options to investigate. 

Do you know any other firearms similar to the m6? All I know of is the Savage 42

Not really similar to it. For a woods/camp gun, I personally don't need anything that either breaks down, or is all that lightweight. So it all comes down to our own criteria. For me - a .22 lever action (Marlin 39A) is pretty much the ideal small game camp gun. No need for the .410.

Or frankly, a high-power .22 pellet rifle (piston) - which will let me carry 500 rounds of ammo in a tin the size of a burger patty. 

It's a great rifle. A little pricey though, and hard to find. henry AR-7's are easy to find and much cheaper, though it is a very different rifle, much more usable and more fun to play with, but it doesn't have the .410 so that might be a deal breaker.

Any other rifles or combos in mind? I just want a woods gun/camping gun that i can take small game with. I know of the savage 42 and i think I'm going to check that one out because its cheaper and still in production. It's a shame they stopped making the M6 they should reconsider manufacturing them again

If you want the shotgun option and still have a rimfire, the savage model 42 is the way to go. Much cheaper than the springfield.

Ruger makes a pretty nice 10/22 take down now. It doesn't have the .410 option but it is light weight and stores easy. 

I purchased a Marlin 795 and and it has been a great .22. It is light weight and very accurate right out of the box with just iron sights. It is cheaper then the 10/22. The but of the gun is also hollow stock which sort of gives you a compartment to store a small amount of stuff.

I don't think there is much need for a .410 but it would be fun to have.

I'd get hold of the latest issue of Gun Digest.  Otherwise, I've seen, from time to time, over-under combo long guns in caliber combinations from 22LR/410 to .30-06 over 12 ga.  I think the Savage is still in production, but a niche weapon of this sort will be a challenge to locate.

If you're after it for a "snake gun", and easier to find item is .38 Special or .357 magnum pistol loaded with a couple of rounds of snake shot and the rest the old standard 158-gr round nose .38 Spl rounds.  Park Rangers in an area near where I live carried that weapon and load as they generally dealt with rattlers and skunks.

Can somebody tell a gun newbie the difference in game you'd take with the .22lr vs. the .410?  Is it just a range thing, an on-the-run vs. still thing, or is one better for certain types of animals?  As a listener to this discussion, can I get a layman's description of what y'all are talking about?

a .410 is the smallest shotgun caliber. It doesn't have much range but is better than a .22 for flying birds and rabbits on the run granted the rabbit is within a very short distance. A .22 is not good for birds as they will be flying but a good shot could take a rabbit at 75 yards with a simple .22.

Really only good for small game or pests

Or trolls.

RSS

Latest Activity

Forge replied to Native Son's discussion The Current Travel Mess. in the group The Great Debate
"Ok, so I'm going to state somethings for contemplation and reflection, not to try and steer the conversation any particular direction. Were you as upset when Obama stated that he would side with the Muslims? Does it matter which side of the…"
54 minutes ago
Lumberjoe replied to Braeden's discussion Star Trek or Star Wars? in the group The Great Debate
""Would there have been Star Wars without Star Trek?" Probably. It's Kurosawa in space. As opposed to Kurosawa in the wild west. As opposed to Kurosawa. IMO it was inevitable. 2001: A Space Odyssey happened in 1968."
1 hour ago
Forge replied to Native Son's discussion The Current Travel Mess. in the group The Great Debate
"Were you not paying attention during the Obama years? The same president who said "If congress will not act, I will" after Congress shot down the essence of the Dreamers act 4 TIMES??? The facts  here is that while Trump can…"
1 hour ago
John Muir replied to Braeden's discussion Star Trek or Star Wars? in the group The Great Debate
"Star Trek, because it's partially inspired by Captain Cook Captain James T Kirk of the USS Enterprise went on a mission to discover new worlds. He beamed down to the planet with a scientist, a doctor, and 2 soldiers. Captain James T Cook of…"
1 hour ago
Liam Strain replied to Braeden's discussion Star Trek or Star Wars? in the group The Great Debate
"ST. Star Wars' story has been told countless times. ST offers more perspective. "
1 hour ago
Lumberjoe replied to Lumberjoe's discussion The Fourth Political Theory in the group The Great Debate
"You're not too far. Depending on which of Dugin's works you're reading, it's either:  A new Eurasian empire led by the Russians based on Moscow and rooted in Orthodox Christianity where all constituent nations are equal…"
3 hours ago
Tim replied to Braeden's discussion Star Trek or Star Wars? in the group The Great Debate
"Would there have been Star Wars without Star Trek? Would it have been the same?Star Trek for the win here."
3 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Braeden's discussion Star Trek or Star Wars? in the group The Great Debate
"Fair point, but if God told you he was going to erase either SW or ST from existence, and made you choose, which one would you spare?"
12 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service