[Alpo]

Kristie, the reason they can make a revolver that will fire both is because it has interchangeable cylinders. One is chambered for long rifle and the other is chambered for magnum. To make a rifle that would do both they would have to have some way to switch the chambers.

Generally rifle chambers are part of the barrel, so making a rifle that would fire both Long Rifle and Magnum would require two different barrels.

Thompson Center makes such a gun. You have the receiver, and then you have interchangeable barrels, that will all fit on the same receiver. You can get a Long Rifle barrel, and you can get a Magnum barrel. You can also get high-powered barrels - 223, 30/30, 30/06, etc.

That's the only way I can think of that it could be done.

 

[Alpo]

Its "breakthrough removable cylinder"? Rossi just came up with that idea, did they? Wow.

 

[Alpo]

Savage will be cheaper, but I think CZ is a better gun.

An excellent one would be a used Mossberg. A 320 or 340, from the 60s or 70s.

 

[Alpo]

Man, you guys know your stuff! That's why I asked instead of just relying on my research. Not sure what I want to do. Didn't want to spend a whole lot of money on this one. And would like to get a package deal with a scope if I can. I'll probably opt for just a regular ol' .22LR cause it's so cheap to shoot. I do like the .22WMR round, but not sure that's the way to go pricewise. Oh, and I do have a single six convertible - that's why I wanted a rifle that can do the same thing!

That's it, right there. I've got three Single-Sixes with the magnum cylinder, and used to have a Sentinel Mark IV with both cylinders. I have a box and a half of Magnums, bought in 1980 when I bought the Sentinel. The Rugers have never had the magnum cylinders put in the gun. Magnums just cost to dang much. 5 bucks a box, when Long Rifles were 80 cents, was bad. At the time I was loading 38 specials for 1.50 a box.

Nowadays, 10 dollars a box is just crazy for non-reloadable throw-away-the-brass ammo.