A lot of good varminting utilizes impromptu rests, but with anything less than a steady bench rest, you are reducing your stability and thus your potential range.

Standard hunting scopes in the 3-9X, 3.5-10X and no more than about 4-12X are ideal for calling, and in the more open country I usually hunt, I keep them turned down to no more than 6X.

Sandbags and/or bipods, used from the prone position, can be almost as steady as a good bench rest--and steadier than a flimsy, rocky bench.

The other important characteristic of a calling rifle is that you need some level of power. I know of no animal in North America that is as tough pound for pound as a coyote. You don't need a cannon, but none of the rimfires is truly adequate, and if the range stretches out a bit, even the wonderful old .22 Hornet isn't enough gun. Good coyote cartridges start with the .17, .222 and .223 Remingtons and go up from there. In fact, you could make a case that the ideal calling rifle is your favorite and best-handling deer rifle, and using it will provide valuable practice. But I'd opt for a medium-barreled sporter in something like a .223 Remington as the ideal. My old Kimber mini-Mauser in .223 wears a compact 3-9X scope, and I consider it an ideal calling rig.

SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG
Turning to the rodents: Gophers on up to 'chucks, I'm still not convinced that the heavy-barreled centerfire is the across-the-board choice. In fact, I'm convinced it's not, because not all ground squirrel, prairie dog or woodchuck hunting takes the classic form of setting up for the long shot. In California a lot of our best ground squirrel hunting takes place in small valleys, where long shots are uncommon. In the Rocky Mountain West some of the most fun I've had is wandering irrigated hayfields and shooting at the thousands of gophers that infest them. In hilly, small woodlot country throughout the East there are stalking opportunities for woodchucks in places where there's no way to set up for a long shot.

Predator hunting is altogether different from most other forms of varminting. Raw accuracy is not really all that critical; instead there's a premium on the rifle's handling qualities, and a certain power level is required.

So it seems to me that, wherever you live, there's a place for short-, medium- and long-range varmint cartridges (and rifles that shoot them). I tend to think of short range as not much more than 100 yards. Medium goes on out to perhaps 250 yards, maybe 300. Long range is as far as you and your rifle are capable.

While long-range cartridges can certainly be used at short range, there isn't genuine need for the power and noise. On the smallest rodents--gophers and ground squirrels--the great old .22 Long Rifle is the quietest, least expensive to shoot and most fun of all. But if you take the small varmints as a class, this is not enough power--nor is the new .17 Mach 2. So, to my thinking, the short-range varmint cartridges are characterized by the .17 HMR, .22 WMR and .22 Hornet. The .17 HMR drops off very quickly in killing power, but it's wonderful for stalking the edges of a prairie dog town or ground squirrel hollow if you keep your shots short. With its heavier bullet, the .22 Magnum seems to me to be effective at slightly greater ranges, but my experience suggests that the .17 HMR is, on average, considerably more accurate (perhaps this is because it's a new development).

Personally, I just love the great old .22 Hornet. It's easily effective at much greater range than the rimfire magnums. But, truthfully, I've seen very few .22 Hornet rifles that were particularly accurate, and it's a great deal more expensive to shoot than the two rimfires.

There are also relatively few viable medium-range varmint cartridges. The three that come most readily to mind are the .17, .222 and .223 Remingtons. I reckon the wonderfully accurate .222 to be the best of these, but it's hard to argue with the runaway popularity of the .223. It is far and away the most popular of all the .22 centerfires.