I’ve never been the type where I ever thought that more than three (3), (T-H-R-E-E)centerfire rifles where EVER needed to hunt the world. Let’s be clear though, I’ve owned more than that, obviously, but no one could convince me that they — or I — NEED more than three: Something for varmints and small game, something for medium game and something for large and dangerous game. All three could be chambered for cartridges that would be adequate for each class of game under all conditions… It’s easy. For instance: a .25-06 Remington, a .338 Winchester and a .416 Remington. Add a 12-gauge and a .22LR and you are set for life. Another example could be: a .223 Remington, a .308 Winchester and a .375 Ruger. Want another one? How about a .257 Weatherby Magnum, a 7mm Weatherby Magnum and a .416 Weatherby? Or one of my favorite threes (or four), a 7-08 Winchester, a .300 Winchester, a .44 Rem Mag and a .458 Winchester.

Actually, when it comes right down to it, a serious hunter could get by for ALL North American big game with one rifle chambered for one of the mediums. Then, if you felt the “need”, you could add something like a .257 Roberts for the rest. In fact, we could hunt the world with a .257 Roberts and a 9.3 X 62 or a .375 magnum. That, along with a 12 gauge and .22LR could keep me happy… what about you?

You see, there are endless possibilities. People with 70 guns, more or less, will end up using something like three or four most of the time. The others are for looking at, boasting about, selling or trading (I’ve done all that too).

Now… with that out of the way… WHAT? The fact that we can get along fine with about three center-fire rifles, a shotgun and a .22LR, that’s “what”.

Back to our theme: At least one of those three, or a dozen, needs to be a “more than enough” rifle/cartridge combo that could be used under most conditions for the majority of large/dangerous game we intend to hunt, or may run afoul of.

Last week our focus was on a “What if” situation involving an oversize bull moose at an extended range of around 450 – 500 yards. “Yes buts…” are unacceptable because that moose is fast disappearing into thick bush and the certainty of shortening the distance is less than .2%. And there’s no guide to scurry around to lasso another bull in a nearby meadow!

I made the observation that “too much gun” would be just about perfect for those conditions. If you think that bull is going to hang around until you catch up… then you don’t know much about how fast a big bull moose can travel over the worst terrain possible in simply walking it. I defy anyone to keep up with a big moose when he/she is merely walking with the intent of going somewhere! The ONLY way to catch that moose described last week is in using something like a .340 Weatherby! “Too much gun!”, someone screams… yeah, right…

Here’s another “What if?” situation: What if the animal is uncooperative and acts in an unpredictable manner. And what if that animal becomes aggressive and charges, or hunts the hunter?

I do a lot of black bear hunting, and I act as an unpaid guide to some friends and family. Also, a few years back I tried to purchase the rights to a Bear Management Area (BMA)in Ontario. That didn’t quite work out for a number of reasons, but in the end I was happy about that because the next year spring bear hunting was shut down. But I continue to bait bear every year starting in midsummer for the opening on the first day of September. We have a long bear season here: The three months of September, October and November. I have to say that at this stage in my life, it’s my favorite hunt! And I love the Big Bores for bears. Why?

It makes sense because of the physical conditions and the bears themselves. What do I mean?

The bears: by late summer and early fall, bears are adding weight at a phenomenal rate. And they have insatiable appetites. That’s the good news for hunters who use the baiting method to take the bear that they envision. The reality is, however, that all bears are ravenous that time of year, making preparation for denning at the end of November — early December, IF they’ve been satisfied, and IF the weather cooperates with snow and cold to encourage nature to take its course.

So, what we get at our baits is a great variety of bears: Momma bear with her family; adolescent bears who act much like human adolescents; mature males that think they are in charge (you know the type – something like the 35 year old CEO of a company), and then the older, wiser, secretive, cautious, REALLY BIG FULLY MATURE bears that are often males (boars), but not always.

Several years back in a spring hunt, a very large, somewhat secretive male bear was attending my number one bait site. I hadn’t yet seen him, but all the evidence (scat, claw marks, bites in the bait buckets, paw imprints, etc)let me know he was, for sure, a prime target. Then late one evening, as I was packing up my gear to leave because light was about gone, he came in. I was bending over to gather up my camera to load it into my seat-backpack, and when I looked up over the blind, there he was sitting in front of the bait barrel, looking at it in an unperturbed way with his broad back toward me. In appearance, the size of a sumo wrestler would best describe him. I was 90 yards away, above him on the side of a ridge…

(Bear photo credit:USFWS)

I put my camera down and reached for my… ?

Come back next time for the rest of this story… It gets very interesting. Was he really a tranquil bear that loved peaceful relations with the rest of his world? What if… not?

And, oh yes… the physical conditions will be amply filled in too!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Some hunters seem to have a yen for using small bores for big game. Why do they do that? Others have the philosophy that “enough is enough”. Why waste power and money that’s not needed? Then, a minority fit the bracket of “Too much is just right”. Somehow, I seem to be most at home in that latter community of fellow hunters. Why? Well, to be honest, it has little to do with any sense of compensation for an inferiority complex! Or, on the other had, a superiority complex! Most of the guys I know, or have met, who choose “too much rifle” have a strong pragmatic bent. What do I mean?

Pragmatism is a practical sense that takes into consideration all possible variables… not just the ideal situation. It always seeks to answer the question: “What if?”

“What if” what? What if the range is much longer than expected? What if the big-game animal isn’t cooperative, or doesn’t respond as anticipated? What if it’s a dangerous animal that charges or “hunts the hunter”? What if geological or other physical conditions demand that the animal drops permanently on the spot? What if there are several dangerous-game animals that seem to be “ganging up”? What if the situation allows for only one shot? What if, while hunting a typical medium-size, non-dangerous species, a large aggressive type moves unexpectedly onto the scene?

And there may be other “What ifs”. That’s not to suggest that we should be checked for paranoia if we entertain such questions, as in reality the possibility and actuality of such occurrences are more than a rarity. They DO happen! Take for instance the moose hunter who runs afoul of a grizzly that thinks the meat belongs to him!

Let’s take a practical look at some or these “What ifs”. In rethinking these potential scenarios, and adding any personal “encounters” of the fearsome sort, let’s venture into the field of the “risky” to help us determine appropriate cartridges and bullets, as well as the rifles that might be employed to fire them.

What if the range turns out to be much longer than expected on a bull moose that’s 350 lbs above average, and you’ve brought along your .270 Winchester shooting your favorite load of 130gr “zappers”?

I happen to know at least one hunter who toted his favorite .270 Win into those exact same conditions, for several years, until he discovered how inadequate his cherished rifle was in the face of reality. He then switched to a 7mm Rem Mag. Now he uses a .338 Winchester Magnum.

The conditions presented above can be a very real thing in much of the range where moose are hunted across the northern and northwest regions of Canada. And I’d expect the same to be true in parts of the western provinces, the territories, like the Yukon, and much of Alaska. Then there’s Newfoundland, where shots can be on the long side of far.

I know it to be true in the vast regions of Northern Ontario where woodlands have been clear-cut and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of lakes and streams. In other words, it’s indeed very likely that you will NOT find the moose of your dreams standing broadside, in the open, at 50 yards away! Not in that terrain at least… It’s possible, but very unlikely! A 1400 lb moose is above average in Ontario, for instance, but they do exist! And one moving along the border between a marsh and treeline at 450 yards out will not be an easy shot to begin with, but with the right cartridge, bullet and rifle in “good hands”, with a solid rest, it’s doable! Yet, I know of hunters who have “launched” 150 grainers from their .270 Winchesters under similar circumstances, on a “wing and a prayer”, and the results were not pretty.

My preference under such conditions would be something like a .340 Weatherby, and I’ve used one in “The Northland” of Ontario when in such surroundings. Such a rifle and cartridge give confidence that ANY condition will not be “too far”, or any moose “too big” at up to 500 yards with the right load and a solid rest while the moose is quartering away or toward the hunter. That ALSO assumes that the hunter is up to the task of properly handling his rifle, which is another topic for another time.

The .340 Weatherby is a great cartridge, of course. It’s better than the .338 Winchester by about 100 yards. What the .338 Winchester can do on a 1400 lb moose at 400 yards, the .340 Wby. can do at 500! And the .338 RUM is about the same and a little more. Someone asks: “What about the .300 RUM under those conditions?” Well, to be honest, and factual… the .300 RUM will NEVER equal a .340 Weatherby in potential because the .340 has a 22% advantage in cross-sectional area, a 25% advantage in bullet weight and 17% in momentum… Plus, the 300 RUM burns 16% MORE powder while inflicting more recoil!!! (with same weight rifle).

A .375 H&H or .375 Ruger would also get the job done, but the .340 Weatherby would still beat them both at 450 yards due to a flatter trajectory and more retained energy and momentum. And that’s because of bullets with much better ballistic coefficients. The premium bullets for the .340 are equally as good as those in .375″, except they are sleeker with a better ballistic profile and sectional density, assuming a 270 or 300gr in .375″ and a 250gr in .338″. The 250gr Nosler Partition would leave the muzzle of my .340 Wby., with a 26″ tube, at a real-life 3000 fps! And it has an S.D. of .313 and a BC of .473. The 300gr NP in .375 has an SD of .305 and a BC of .398. Those numbers make a significant difference, especially as the range lengthens.

The .340 Wby and the .338 RUM could equally handle just about any scenario presented in moose or bear country, or the world of any thin-skinned game where legal. That also holds true for the .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, the .338 Winchester and the 9.3 X 62. The .375 Ruger and 9.3 X 62 are handier in the thick stuff because of size and weight, yet adequate in their down-sized formats for reaching out to 450 yards for dealing with that oversize moose (There’s more on the 9.3 X 62 in recent blogs).

Premium bullets, like the Nosler Partitions, are favored in all cartridges mentioned for any situation that makes demands beyond the ordinary.

“…any scenario presented” are the key words. Which includes hunting on your own without a guide or outfitter. Most hunters in Ontario don’t employ guides or outfitters who find the game and get them as close as possible. There are over 100,000 moose hunters in Ontario, and I’m among them. And, that would be also true of residents of Alaska, Australia and parts of Europe, like Finnland. Yet, I know little about European hunting. So this blog is not particularly aimed at the paying hunter, though he/she might profit from some of our views nonetheless.

All that brings us back to the main theme of this series of essays: “What if… the range is much longer than expected, and the animal is much larger than average?” We’ve looked at a scenario involving moose to help clarify implications that could equally apply to large game wherever hunted.

What are those implications?

1)Go prepared for extreme situations, not “normal” ones. A .270 Winchester shooting a handloaded premium 150-grain at 2850 fps might be ideal for an 850 lb moose standing broadside at 200 yards with a shot through the heart/lung area. At least my formula used as a guideline tells me so. But, when I have to travel 1000 miles (1600 kms) to track down a bull on license in WMU 15B, in Northern Ontario, where success rate is 25%… I’ll tell you this: I’LL NOT BE TOTING A .270 WINCHESTER, OR ANY OF IT’S ILK!!!

What some consider “way too much gun”, is just about perfect for most of my hunting. I’ll explain… on another day.

More next time on WHEN TOO MUCH IS JUST RIGHT.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .300 Winchester Magnum could basically represent that class as it is by far the most popular. The .340 Weatherby is a veritable powerhouse, by any measurement, and while it is slightly outclassed in kinetic energy by three others, it still produces 5000 ft-lbs of smash at the muzzle and shoots a 250gr as flat as a 130gr from a .270 Winchester. The ancient, but excellent, .45-70 has experienced a revival over the past 40 years, and is better than ever. And neither of those other two calibers can begin to approach it in momentum or the size hole that it makes. It’s been my favorite for the past two decades, and I fully expect it will continue to be until I’m too feeble to shoulder one.

The .300 Winchester has to be one of my all-time favorites if we go by the sheer number I’ve owned. As a one-cartridge do-it-all in North America, it’s hard to beat. There are lots of available rifles chambered for it at reasonable cost… and that also goes for ammo and handloading products. It will do for anything in North America… and 90% of African game as well. It’s renowned for accuracy, and a good one, ready to go, should not weigh in excess of 8.5 lbs. Recoil is more than a .30-06, but less than the .338 magnums. And, it’s VERY flat shooting. With the right bullet, like a 180 or 200gr Nosler Partition, it will do all jobs efficiently and effectively, from coyote at 450 yards to moose at the same range. But it is just as effective on that variety of game at 50 yards! That’s it’s beauty and why it’s the number two magnum in popularity.

BUT!! Anything it can do at those ranges on 25 lb game to 2500 lb, the 9.3 X 62 can also do, and then some. It can’t match the 9.3 Mauser in momentum at any range when best loads are used in each! And, the 9.3′s bullets have a 42% larger cross-sectional area… they’re bigger! And that applies also to the .300 RUM or .30-378 Weatherby!!

Check this out: a 220gr .30-cal at 3100 fps from a .30-378 Weatherby has 97.4 ft-sec. momentum at the muzzle. A 286gr .366-cal at 2500 fps has 102.1 ft-sec momentum! And that .30-cal bullet has a poor ballistic coefficient of .351 compared to the 286gr Nosler with a B.C. of .482! Which means? The 220gr slows much faster than the 286gr! Even the 200gr Accubond in .30-cal at 3200 fps, with a terrific B.C. of .588, STILL lags behind the 286gr Nosler to 400 yards! Add to all that the fact of burning 105grs of powder in the .30-378 compared to less than 70 in the 9.3… Well, I’m sure you get the picture.

That’s why, if I want a super-thirty, I choose the .300 Win Mag over the others. The WSM is attractive but falls short of the original .300 by Winchester by about 100 fps, all else equal.

The .340 Weatherby and .338 RUM are the equals of the .375 H&H, and surpass it in reach and flatness of trajectory. I’ve owned a .340… and liked it. Sure, they do surpass the 9.3 X 62 in muzzle energy, momentum and reach. But also in costs! And weight! And length!

When I purchased my TIKKA in 9.3 X 62, I had the option between it and a Remington 700 in .338 RUM at about the same price. It had a grey/black laminate stock. The TIKKA was new and the Remington had some slight usage but looked new. I debated the issue in my mind for a week before deciding on the TIKKA in 9.3 X 62.

The deciding points in favor of the 9.3 X 62 for me were: 1)I had already owned a .340 WBY with a stainless 26″ barrel/action in a synthetic stock, and knew pretty much what to expect from that genre of rifle-cartridge combo. 2)When I handled the TIKKA and Remington side-by-side, one in each hand, it was no contest. The Remington felt like a piece of 46″ lead drain-pipe, while the TIKKA seemed like a 42″ feather!

I’ve lauded the TIKKA in blogs passed… so go there to read my impressions!

3) There is nothing a .338 RUM can do in this country, that a 9.3 X 62 could not do as well, should we need to get 100 yards closer.

NOW, as regards my favorite: the .45-70, or .45-70 IMP, or .458 Winchester. It’s all a matter of degree… but anything, within reason, in .458″ is beyond any question whatsoever my all-time FAVORITE BORE SIZE!

WHY??

Get this: a lowly 400gr/.458″ at 1875 fps has the momentum of a .375″, 300gr at 2500 fps! THEN, it makes a hole in anything that’s 50% larger! That’s modest velocity from a modern .45-70. Increase the speed of a good 400gr bullet in .458″ to 2000 fps (doable in an 1895 Marlin) and the .375 H&H couldn’t keep pace in momentum or size of wound channel. That’s why I’ve always preferred .458″ over .375″.

But!! If velocity is 2000 fps from a 500gr in a Ruger #1 in .45-70, the only cartridges that can keep pace in momentum are the true Big Bores! Even a .416 Remington can’t keep up! But my Ruger #1 in .45-70 IMP will send a 500gr on its way at an easy 2200 fps! That’s Lott territory with an equal length barrel!

So, the way I look at it is this: all bases are covered! Currently, my two favorite cartridges are ancient! One dating from 1872 as a black powder military cartridge which has experienced many updates to the level of modern magnum Big Bores! The other, not nearly as old, but certainly older than I am by thirty years. At 107 years it’s as modern as any new rifles, powders and bullets could make it, and it’s the equal of, or surpasses, many with belts!

‘Til next time,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why? Because this page concerns a comparison between two cartridges that appeared on the scene within a decade of each other, from two European countries, two famed manufacturers were involved, and aimed for European colonies in East Africa where big-bad-beasts were destroying crops and eating people!

The comparison is between the distinguished 9.3 X 62 and the celebrated .375 H&H. The first being the creation of a Berlin gunsmith, Otto Bock in 1905, and the latter a production of the renowned London based firm of Holland and Holland in 1912.

Neither were military rounds, but their sole reason for existence was to protect European colonialists in East and Southern Africa against the mega fauna that inhibited farming and threatened lives.

The 9.3 X 62 was first on the scene, and appeared in a Mauser bolt-action repeater. It fired a heavy bullet at relatively modest velocity that simply worked beyond expectations. I have seen several numbers presented that supposedly represent original ballistics, but whatever they were, it simply got the job done!

Actually, there were several or, at least, a few loads available for anything from smallish antelope to 2000 lb Eland and buffalo. The “heavy solids” also managed to dispatch six-ton elephant quite expeditiously, as well. In fact, this cartridge–rifle combo worked so well on anything and everything, that it became the number one choice of all European settlers in Africa, regardless of district or area. It remained so until after the First World War. Of course, that war annihilated the Mauser Works, as well as munition plants, so it was a whole “new ball game” after 1918.

The distinguished .375 H&H appeared in 1912 and was destined for the same market as the 9.3 X 62. Since the main bullet was slightly heavier — 300grs vs. 286grs — and slightly faster — 2500 fps vs. 2350 fps — and slightly larger — .375″ vs. .366″ — it was deemed to be “more” effective; i.e.: “more powerful”. In truth, it was more powerful by nearly 20% — 4163 ft-lbs vs. 3507 ft-lbs, but the sectional densities were identical at .305, and the cross-sectional area distinction was less than 5%. In addition, momentum favored the H&H by about 12%. So there was a difference… in theory!

However… the reality was that the colonialists still favored the 9.3 over the .375, until The War, that is until no more 9.3 X 62 Mausers were available. But those who had them held onto them.

The reasons are still quite familiar to those of us who have used both. The .375 H&H had to use a magnum-length action because the COL (Cartridge Overall Length) was 3.65″ vs. the 3.291″ of the 9.3. This added weight, and everything else about the .375 added weight as well. So the feeling of a relatively light-weight handy rifle for hunting was lost in the .375 H&H. In addition, the ammo was not up to par… It didn’t work on the bad stuff as well as that issued from Germany. And farmers just didn’t like the heavier/sharper recoil from the H&H.

While simply not doing anything the 9.3 X 62 had not already done with poise, ammo and rifles being much more costly, and the rifle itself being larger and heavier with the attendant feeling it was not as “user friendly”, as we would say it today, the end result was that the .375 H&H had a dubious start in Africa.

Two historical factors saved the day for the H&H: In America, Winchester chambered it in their excellent M70 in 1937, produced ammo for it, and all that at a much more economical cost than anything London was in the habit of doing. Then, at the end of the Second World War, American industry was humming, soldiers who returned from The War had more disposable incomes, and Africa became attractive to the aspiring Safari hunter. The costs of such big game hunting was also relatively modest. In essence, the .375 H&H replaced the struggling 9.3 X 62. Though for most Africans and African PHs, they hung onto them even though it was difficult to obtain the expensive ammo from The Continent to feed them.

That’s, in a nutshell, the history of both cartridges.

But what about today… which one is “best”? Then again, how do we define “best”, and best for what?

I’m not going to drag this out more than necessary. In other words, let’s cut to the chase while acknowledging that some have their preference of one over the other for their own reasons. Then others have both. Still others, like myself, have some experience with each. Which is best? I’d suggest you flip a coin!

From the practical view, they each have some very good strengths and possibly a few weaknesses, depending on our needs and expectations.

Medium bores or, as I designate them, “Light Big Bores”, are no doubt the most useful and versatile for rifle hunting of big game. I’ve stated something like that a few times previously. After many years in the hunting of white tail, black bear and moose, under a variety of conditions, I’ve come to hold that as a conviction. As most of you are aware, who have followed these blogs, I have a love affair with the .45-70. And I’ll write more on that in an up-coming article, but I have to admit that the .45-70, even with the hottest loads, isn’t as versatile. Then too, the .300 Win Mag is a favorite of mine… I’ve owned more than a handful of ‘em. But when the chips are down, a larger bore, more momentum and a bigger hole works best.

The advantages of the .375 H&H, in today’s world, are two, as compared to the 9.3 X 62: 1)Slightly more powerful, and 2)More rifles and ammo available… at least for now.

The disadvantages, compared to the 9.3 X 62, are several: 1)More costly rifles; 2)Heavier, longer and less “user friendly”; 3)Heavier recoil in burning about 15 grains more powder per shot; 4)Less versatile; 5) Will not likely be used as much as the lighter, more friendly 9.3 X 62; 6)In general, for the majority, it will require more “work” in developing loads that shoot as accurately as the 9.3 X 62, due to the recoil factor; and 7)The 9.3 will be fired more often, at the range and in hunting, contributing to greater confidence and accuracy overall.

The .375 H&H is at the upper end of the “mediums”, whereas the 9.3 X 62 is a rung on the ladder below that. Yet, if we compare a 22.5″ .375 H&H, firing a 300gr Nosler Partition at 2500 fps, MV, with a 286gr Nosler Partition from my 9.3 X 62, with it’s 22.4″ barrel at 2500 fps, MV, the H&H has a 50 yd advantage… after that the 9.3 has caught up and surpasses it in trajectory and momentum all the way to 400 yards! It even surpasses it in energy from 250 yards to 400 yards! Not bad for a cartridge not much larger than a .30-06, and on the second-from-top rung on the echelon of “Light Big Bores”!

It’s simple math: IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOAD ‘EM!

All for now…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

So I believe I’m qualified to make an assessment of the two cartridges in a comparative way. Last week I presented a couple of top-end loads for the 9.3 X 62 Mauser. That’s not to infer that they are the only loads or the best loads… or even the ultimate that I will discover for myself. But they do represent loads that are accurate and near the top end of things. The operative word here is “near”, not ultimate! In other words, I believe they can be “improved”… slightly.

The bullet weight in the 9.3 Mauser that interests me most is the one that has set the standard for that cartridge… the 286gr. It’s something like a 180gr in a 300 magnum, or a 300gr in the .375 H&H. In fact, it has the identical sectional density as a 300gr in .375-inch.

I’m using the 286gr Hornady Interloc bullet as my “go-to” projectile. It’s very, very accurate in my rifle at top velocity whether using Reloader 15 or Reloader 17. And that, my friends, brings up the topic of which powder, or powders, work best in this TIKKA rifle chambered in the famed 9.3 X 62.

From the get-go, I started with RL-15 as, from experience with it in both the .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag, it seemed the most logical choice. And, I had some on hand from loading those two cartridges and a .375 H&H as well as a couple of .458 Winchester Magnums.

It works very well for me in the 9.3 X 62 and, to keep things simple, I could easily get by with this one powder being as happy as a haddock in the Atlantic. But, never being one to “leave well enough alone”, I had to experiment… (past tense), and will experiment again!

So, that brings up (again) the topic of RL-17 in the 9.3 X 62. How good is it, and does it work as well, or better than it’s older, faster brother, RL-15? Well, here’s the answer… in short form: No and yes! Or, yes and no… let me explain.

On the 28th of October I loaded up several cases with RL-17 and capped them with that 286 Hornady. The results were very disappointing. The top load was with 64grs, with erratic, comparatively low velocities. I gave up on it thinking that would be a near max load with that powder according to a respected source. I was content to stay with RL-15 as it gave just about everything I was looking for.

I was looking for good accuracy and a muzzle velocity somewhere between 2400 and 2450 fps. That’s about 100 fps more than factory specs. But, just like the old .30-06, pressures are kept modest in the 9.3 Mauser due to old and worn rifles that are still in use. And, just as in a modern bolt-rifle chambered in .30-06, pressures can be “upped” to reflect modern technology in both powder development and metallurgy. In other words, just as a .338 Winchester Magnum can be safely loaded to 64,000 psi, so can a late model bolt-action in .30-06 or 9.3 X 62 Mauser. That’s 8,000 more psi than the original 9.3 X 62 born in 1905.

Plus, there are current powders that work MUCH better than anything produced in 1905! In the .30-06, literature and SAAMI hold the pressure to traditional levels in deference to rifles with a lot of wear ‘n tear, and poorer metals. As well, standards for the 9.3 X 62 do not reflect the vast improvements in technology over the past century. Ergo: you will hear of factory loads, and see loads in manuals, that manifest trepidation to go where one can safely venture with new bolt-actions in 9.3 X 62.

My intention is to go there. And I will… and have.

On Tuesday, of this past week, another trek was made to the range. This time with a handful of new cases loaded with the 286 Hornady, ignited with WLRM primers and 67grs of RL-17!

And here’s the miracle, or Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” result: It shot the loads using RL-17 into the EXACT SAME GROUP as my hunting load using RL-15 AT THE SAME MUZZLE VELOCITY WITH THE SAME SUB-MOA!!! And that’s a TRUE truth! I lie not!

The only thing was, it took 7grs more powder to do it! But, likely at LESS psi. At least, signs would suggest that, and so does math.

Therefore, a modern bolt-action repeater — such as a Ruger Hawkeye African, a CZ 550, or a TIKKA T3 in 9.3 X 62 can safely be loaded to the same psi as any modern bolt-action repeater in .338 Winchester Magnum. And the brass cases are just as strong. So there’s no reason not to venture there. That means it’s possible to add about 150 fps to the traditional load of 286grs at 2360 fps. As before stated: New loads for this famed cartridge, which are made in the USA by Remington, Hornady et al, reflect this conservative stance at 2360 fps for their 286gr loadings.

I understand their reasoning, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t, or shouldn’t, go where this TIKKA rifle can safely take me with today’s reloading components.

My current top-end load using RL-15 behind the 286gr Hornady, gives a consistent 2460 to 2472 fps. At MOA. Absolute max with that powder is 2482 fps average. But accuracy was not quite as good, so I backed off 1/2 grain for sub-MOA, and a loss of a mere 15 – 20 fps.

As mentioned, RL-17 was a discouragement first time out, at 64grs pushing the 286 Hornady. Last week, I upped the charge by 3 grains and voila, 2468 fps (avg), .886″ MOA, and impact at the exact point as the RL-15 hunting load. That means I could use either powder and get the same results. RL-15 is more efficient and RL-17 means lower pressure, longer case life but slightly heavier recoil. Choose your medicine.

Now, as to the .338 Winchester Magnum:

1) A SAKO 20″ carbine gave around factory specs for velocity, but case life was not too good: 250s @ 2675 fps (avg.); 225s @ 2800 fps.

2) My son’s 24″ Remington: 2735 fps from 250s and around 2875 from 225s. These loads were not absolute max, but near top-end.

3) My 26″ Browning A-Bolt: 2840 from 250s and over 2900 from 225s.

Those are data points. Your experience may differ somewhat, but in general one can expect these results safely from the average 24″ .338 Win Mag:

210s @ 2900+ fps
225s @ 2850+ fps
250s @ 2800 (barely, in some rifles; less in others)

Now to make things even with my 22.4″ TIKKA, the .338 WM will loose about 35 – 50 fps. That means, in general, that from a 22.5″ .338 Win Mag one could expect these numbers: 2735 fps from 250s; 2820 fps from 225s and 2900 fps from 210s.

If we use my formula (several blogs ago), or a momentum number, the TIKKA T3 in 9.3 X 62 is slightly better.

Example from momentum (Keith’s formula):

9.3 X 62: 286gr @ 2468 fps = 100.8 ft-sec momentum

.338 Win Mag: 250gr at 2735 fps = 97.7 ft-sec momentum.

The .338 Win Mag load would have to leave the muzzle at 2823 fps to match the 9.3 X 62 in momentum. Sectional density is near even, but the 9.3 has a 16.7% larger cross-sectional area — which means something.

Bottom line: The .338 shoots a bit flatter and the 9.3 X 62 hits harder and makes a bit larger hole. So, all things considered, the 9.3 X 62 is at least the equal of the .338 WM, and no doubt better for the larger and more dangerous game. Recoil from the two rifles would be too similar to notice any difference. Yet, “felt recoil” might be dissimilar for a number of reasons that we’ll not get into here. However, we live in free countries (at least for the present)and can choose our medicine… I’ve chosen mine.

NOTE: the above loads for the 9.3 X 62 are MY LOADS, not yours! You really should choose your own… It’s safer and more satisfying.

‘Til next time when we compare with the famous .375 H&H.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Last time, I gave a general overview of my TIKKA T3 in 9.3 X 62. In brief, it’s a delightful little gun that delivers a healthy “thump”! It’s appearance belies it’s obvious capabilities.

A short review of rifles and ammo now manufactured in the U.S. was also mentioned. To extend that, I’ll mention (again) that TIKKA rifles are a division of SAKO of Finnland, which is renowned as a maker of fine firearms. SAKO, in turn, is owned by Beretta.

There’s little doubt in my mind that if the economic situation in the US and Europe holds, or improves, that other makers of firearms will jump into the market for 9.3 X 62 ammo and rifles. Of course, right now that niche is limited, but as writers and bloggers (like myself) speak praise of that cartridge, it’s bound to attract more hunters and riflemen.

My first commentaries on the 9.3 X 62 began on June 1, 2011. That was the first of a series of four entitled: “Something Old & Something New — The 9.3 X 62 Mauser”. You can go back there to read all four throughout the month of June if you want to.

As previously mentioned, the cartridge that is considered its equal in several ways is the .35 Whelen. The Whelen is, of course, a necked-up .30-06 case. I’ll not go into its history, as that’s been amply covered many times elsewhere, as well as by yours truly several months ago. But the ballistics and bullet diameter are close with the edge going to the 9.3 X 62. The Whelen case holds 72grs water while the 9.3 X 62 holds 77. Bore diameters are .358″ for the Whelen and .366″ for the 9.3 X 62, a difference of only 0.008″.

From my experience with a 22″ Remington chambered for the Whelen, the following ballistics were quite easily achieved: 2600 fps from 250gr Hornady’s and Speers, while 2550 fps was max from the 250 Nosler Partition. 2700+ fps from 225s, and 2800 fps from 200s. Those muzzle velocities were from the use of Reloader 15 and were accurate from the barrel of my 7400 (semi-auto). And, by the way, that rifle proved to be super strong, as strong as any bolt-action and it ejected the empties without a hitch, even the hottest loads! Plus it was plenty accurate. I slew a nice black bear with it using the 200gr Barnes-X at an MV of 2800 fps.

Now, let’s try to compare apples to apples here, though things will not match precisely as bullets for the 9.3 X 62 are heavier, with higher sectional densities, and I’ve only used a selection of two for that cartridge to date. First up:

The .35 Whelen, 22″ barrel:
COL = 3.35″ (In my rifle)
Powder: RL-15
Bullet: 250gr Hornady SP
S.D.= .279
B.C. = .375
MV = 2600+/3750 ft-lbs+/93+ momentum

Now:
The 9.3 X 62, 22.4″ barrel
COL = 3.291″ (Factory specs; in my rifle:3.295) for the Hornady.
Powder: RL-15
Bullet: 286gr Hornady
S.D. = .305
B.C. = .410
MV = 2480+ fps/3905 ft-lbs+/101+ momentum

Those are actual loads, and by using RL-17 I may be able to beat the 2500 fps mark with the 286gr Hornady (I have some loaded with 67grs of RL-17 that may just do that).

The 286 Hornady is very accurate in my rifle with the 270 Speer coming in at a little less precision but certainly adequate for anything I hunt. And, by the way, that 270gr is the same construction as the 250gr in .358″, which has been successfully used on griz. A lot of pseudo knowledge is often spouted on the Net, like: “You need a TSX or a Swift A-Frame or a Nosler Partition to cleanly kill a brown or grizzly bear”.

Bullet: 270gr Speer
COL: 3.32″
S.D. = .288
B.C. = .361
MV = 2550+ fps/3898+ ft-lbs/98+ momentum

Those are a few reasons why the 9.3 X 62 is slightly better by about 5% to 8%, depending on rifles used, bullets, powders and psi. Some, who may want to prove their point, can juggle the numbers to do just that. All it proves is that such an individual will also lie to their wives and to the Tax Man!

Keep in mind that there are 280gr Swifts and 310gr Woodleighs available for the .35 Whelen, and 250gr AccuBond and 250gr Swift A-Frames available for the 9.3 X 62. In addition, for the latter there is a 232gr Norma, a 300gr Hornady DGS, a 320gr Woodleigh and a 325gr Norma. 285-grainers are also made for the 9.3 X 62 by S&B and another Euro company. Barnes, of course, makes a 250gr and a 286gr TXS for the 9.3 as well as the same numbers in their Banded Solids.

I know from experience that the Whelen I had would drive the 300gr Barnes Original at 2300+ fps, and I’m expecting my TIKKA T3 Lite would shoot any 300-grain at 2400 fps. The 320s and 325s should leave at 2350 fps, though I’m not planning (just yet)to try these real heavies in my rifle as that would serve no real hunting purpose other than to give them a test drive. Some time in the future I may purchase a box of the 300gr Hornady’s so I could report on ‘em… we’ll see…

See ya next time when we compare the 9.3 X 62 with the .338 Winchester Magnum. Did I really say that? Yes I did! There are more bullets for the .338 W.M. But how many is enough?

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Along with that, comparisons will be made with other rifles I’ve owned (and handloaded) that might fill the same niche. For example: .300 magnums, .338 magnums, the .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag. Others that will be tossed into that same bag will be the .375 H&H and a non-medium, the ancient, but excellent, .45-70. (Left click on the photos to enlarge)

If I have a gift (some would question that) it is that I can be very analytical and objective… even coldly so, if honesty demands it. That’s not to say that I am “coldly honest” in every situation… sometimes I will defer to the opinions of others for the sake of peace, while biting my tongue! However… concerning our topic: Nothing is to be gained by deferring to the opinions of others, especially Internet opinions!

So, what you will get from me on the topic of the TIKKA T3, chambered for the hoary 9.3 X 62, is honest experience and analysis even if somewhat limited at the moment. But many years of handloading “mediums”, and using some of them in the field, allows me to safely extrapolate up to a point.

The foregoing will give you (and me) an idea of where we’re headed in these essays.

THE RIFLE

In addition to personal experience with this rifle, I’ve read on chat rooms what others have had to say on the TIKKA T3 Lite. As well, TIKKA’S web site has been perused in order to obtain correct technical data.

Did you know, for example, that the TIKKA T3 Lite doesn’t have a “plastic” stock, as claimed by the all-knowing Internet crowd? NO! It’s “… made of glass fiber reinforced copolymer polypropylene”. That’s impressive! And right out of the horse’s mouth! I’ll bet you didn’t know all that previously… Neither did I. How insulting, then, to only refer to it as “plastic”! But I WAS somewhat relieved in finding out that it has fiberglass mixed in with it’s “coploymer”. That’s the first time, by the way, that I’ve ever come across that word… and apparently my computer’s spell-check as well. It was underscored in red! But you never know, as modern technology is inventive of many neat things, including new vocabulary. Of course, inventive vocabulary isn’t reserved to technology… JUST READ the interaction on some FORUMS!!! It’s fairly obvious to me by now that most forum members don’t know the difference between “then” and “than”. That’s getting a bit off topic, but I had to throw it in anyway.

As previously mentioned, my T3 Lite weighs a mere 7.2 lbs with scope mounts, rings, scope and sling. 7.4 lbs with ammo loaded. In my first blog on the 9.3 X 62, I said it weighed 6.8lbs empty of ammo, but my scales weren’t telling the truth as on another occasion it said 7.8 lbs! Something was obviously wrong. It has since (oh yeah, another word technology hasn’t helped — many spell it “sense” or even “cents”!! Or… maybe they just don’t use “there”, oooops:”their” spell check!) been corrected and verified, several times, as 7.2 lbs empty of ammo, but with every other thing of importance attached.

In other words, it IS “Lite”! After a day in the field, it never intrudes into my awareness that this rifle is burdensome or “heavy”.

It is also VERY accurate. Almost anything shot in it is accurate, and most loads print near the same point of impact at 100 yards.

Toughness is not just a cliche, either, with the T3 Lite. It’s “copolymer” fiberglass, etc., stock does work in maintaining accuracy by providing a stable platform for the barreled action and glass sights.

In addition, an excellent recoil pad provides comfort for sensitive shoulders from a cartridge that is somewhat mild- mannered to begin with. Though, at only 7.4 lbs, ready to go, recoil from top-end loads are right up there with a .338 Win Mag, or even a .375 H&H, which, to me, is NO BIG DEAL!

The T3 Lite also has a drop-box magazine that stacks three. That means that the bolt strips off a cartridge that is directly in line for the chamber, defeating jams. The cartridge is not off to one side as in staggered magazine clips. In the staggered magazine clip form the cartridge is “picked up” from off-center, or pushed from off-center, into the chamber at an angle contributing to the possibility of a jam when the bolt is manipulated under pressure. Also, when one cartridge is loaded into the chamber of the T3, the box may be released and another cartridge loaded, making a total of four.

The bolt handle and lockup is designed so that ONLY a 70* lift is necessary to unlock the bolt and withdraw it to eject an empty cartridge. I really appreciate that over a 90* lift for several obvious reasons, not the least being that you have more room between bolt handle and scope. AND, the action is one of the smoothest in the business. Perhaps THE slickest.

The scope is a Burris Fullfield II, 2X – 7X by 35mm. And it’s matte black in Burris stainless ring-mounts. Once sighted, it maintains point-of-impact with the same load. Are there more expensive scopes? Oh yes… but I doubt they could serve any better on the T3.

The main purpose for this combination of rifle and scope is as a general-purpose firearm for any big game under all circumstances in which I could possibly use it. That would include the hunting of wolf, bear, deer, moose and possibly elk. Elk is the only likely exception as hunting them in Ontario was only introduced this year. And there were a very limited number of tags available, and the terms and conditions would exclude, or marginalize, most hunters. Nonetheless, I may apply next year as the area is not that far from where I live.
(Elk pic credit: USFWS)

Factory rifles chambered for the 9.3 X 62 have increased the options for the buyer over the past couple of years. Also domestic ammo is now available from Federal, Hornady and Remington. That, of course, is in addition to several European sources that may be obtained through your local gun dealer — though a waiting period may be called for if you are too demanding. Personally, I load my own and there seems to be plenty of components available to the handloader, including multiple kinds and weights of bullets for anything on Planet Earth.

More on that later, but U.S. made rifles in 9.3 X 62 currently include a couple from CZ-USA and a Ruger M77 Hawkeye African. Of course, there are many full-custom makers as well as smiths who can screw a new barrel into an existing action. Even a few among us have the tools and know-how to do it themselves in their own garages!

So, next time we’ll begin to look at the rifles a bit more in depth, including some from Europe, as well as BALLISTICS and the game for which they are suited. And why.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

In addition to those reasons, my supply of RL-15 was nearly depleted. It had proved to be very accurate with good velocity. And my hunting loads were assembled using that powder. But RL-17 looked better based solely on the aforementioned data from Real Guns, and that was a mistake on my part. But I will forgive myself, this time, as extensive searches on the Internet failed to come up with other sources of information for that powder used in the 9.3 X 62. So, I took a chance, and my gamble didn’t pay off.

Anyway, I went ahead with the project as Real Guns’ data was just too good to ignore. Eight rounds were loaded with RL-17, starting with 61 grains and ending at 64. Research did tell me that it’s burning rate is similar to IMR4350… and that was NOT good news from the start, as I knew that IMR4350 would be too bulky and slow burning to get the most from any bullet available for this cartridge.

However, several weeks prior, I’d also handloaded the 286gr Hornady over 59.5 grains of RL-15 at a longer COL (cartridge overall length) than my hunting load of 58 grains. These had yet to be tested. So, on Friday, I also fired off four of those for accuracy and velocity.

RL-15 still proved to be the best. While 64 grains of RL-17 gave an average muzzle velocity (MV) of 2354 fps, with decent accuracy, 59.5 grains of RL-15 produced 2425 fps with exceptional accuracy. And I could still safely increase that by another grain or two… IN MY RIFLE! That load hit dead center at 100 yds (same as my hunting load) and had I not later decided to fire an additional shot, the first two were touching at .126-inch, center to center, and made an exceptional group… of two. (It’s best, by the way, when firing for groups, to finish the series without changing position, or anything else, before standing or moving away from the bench. The reason is that you never hold the rifle exactly the same on the next series of shots, with the same pressure points, head position, grip, sitting position, etc, once you’ve broken your rhythm and concentration.) So my third shot of the 59.5 grains of RL-15, later on after shooting other loads, opened the group to slightly more than an inch. But I was well pleased with the results from the 59.5 grain load. Now I have to go out and purchase some more RL-15!

RL-17 is slower, and may work well with the heaviest bullets (300gr to 325gr), if I decide sometime in the future to go that route for some reason that I can’t come up with at the moment… perhaps, “just because”. The following pic shows all of the shots using RL-17, starting at one shot each from 61 grains, 62, 63 and 63.5. Then four using 64 grains were launched. In other words, eight rounds were shot into the same group employing five different loads. The results are a testimony to the accuracy of the cartridge and rifle.

But, there was an anomaly in my testing: My CHRONY seemed to have given slower velocities than expected for ALL loads. What I mean is: The current hunting load of 58 grains of RL-15 was producing about 2400 fps from the 286gr Hornady. Due to much cooler fall temperatures, from those of mid-summer, they’d dropped from around 2410 – 2420 to about 2390. On Friday, I’d expected around 2460 fps from 59.5 grains. Instead, I “only” received an average from four shots of 2425 fps. Not only that, but loads I’d put together in mid-August, for my backup in the Ruger No.1 .45-70 IMP for bear hunting, on Friday showed a drop in velocity (according to my CHRONY) of 63 fps… that’s just NOT a normal loss in my estimation! It’s possibly due to a weak battery which has never been changed in two years. That means a possible re-test of everything once I can get some new loads put together, AND a new battery.

My experience with CHRONYS tells me that a dying battery always produces numbers that are somewhat erratic and often less than expected. Perhaps, after all, 30 to 40 fps should be added to the above numbers. We’ll see. I’ll keep you informed. Even so, RL-15 proved better than RL-17 with the test components I used, and in MY rifle.

Nonetheless, anything over 2400 fps from a 286gr will not be ignored by any North American big game when impacted in a vital area. And, equally, that applies to any African game with the right projectile.

The exquisite combination of a “Light Big Bore” shooting heavy premium, or “super premium” bullets with a sectional density of .305 at a medium velocity of around 2400 to 2500 fps has proven again and again to be all that’s needed on the world’s largest and most dangerous game animals. When a tough, handy and accurate rifle is added to that combination, more power, weight and costs only detract from the perfection of that formula.

And that’s my view from here.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

However, I still have un-punched bear and wolf tags. And, two days this past week were occupied in looking for some moose meat. So, hunting is ongoing and deer season will soon be upon us.
I did have a good chance on a young bear, which would have fulfilled a need for some delicious bear meat, but decided to let it grow for another year. I was alone and it came to this bait around 6 pm. I saw it twice.

Then, shortly after, a larger bear stood up behind these bushes… perhaps the mother of the younger one.

The “monster bear” was never seen again, but will be there next year, and I now know where he comes from. At the far end of the field we were in, which is about 300 yards away, you’ll note the dark areas in the photos (left click on the pics for enlargement… then click on your back arrow to return to the text). That is where the dominant boar comes from and to which he returns. That is a very deep-dark woods that eventually goes into a treed bog-swampy area, then on to an endless wilderness.

Right now, my aim is to spend more time at the range developing some new loads for the 9.3 X 62. It is the only rifle I’ve carried this past summer and fall ’til now. Before deer season arrives, I hope to again be in the general area of where moose were hunted this past week with my close friend, Ken. (See pics) There, I’ll be doing some scouting and possibly looking for a wolf or bear.

More research on the 9.3 X 62 Mauser has occupied several hours of late. I must say, I’m increasingly impressed with this “little gun”. It is indeed a pleasure to tote for hours on end, and is totally unobtrusive. Yet, it is for sure on the heels of the .375 H&H and Ruger.

I was recently reading a report on one of the forums of an Alaskan hunt for brown bear. In this report, the hunter gave details of the hunt, the rifle and load used, the distance to the bruin along with a video! He was successful in harvesting a huge brownie that probably went at least 1000 lbs! The range was 219 yards, the rifle was a bolt-action chambered in the “venerable” .375 H&H, shooting 270gr Barnes’ TSX’s at an MV of 2700 fps.

(Bear photo credit:USFWS)

Then, I ran some numbers on a computer program comparing that load, which is a “normal” load for the renowned H&H, with my “little” TIKKA in 9.3 X 62. Not the load I’m currently using, but one I plan on using sometime before this hunting season expires on December 31 (not the deer season which ends November 19 or the bear season on the last day of the same month). That’s for wolf!

Actually, the season for wolf doesn’t end then, as it carries on throughout the winter months. But my current ticket ends for that WMU on that date. But I will then simply renew it, so I can hunt wolf from January through March in that same area. I’ll be toting my 9.3 X 62. Some of the wolves in that region can go over 100 lbs! Even 150.

Realistically, what load compares with that 270gr TSX load mentioned? A 286gr Nosler Partition at 2500 fps! The numbers are near identical for the two. Even trajectory is identical! But, the farther from the muzzle these bullets go, the 286 NP load surpasses the 270 TSX load in both energy and momentum! So, it’s true… the 9.3 X 62, with the right load, compared to the H&H with a “normal” 270gr load, is a match and leaves nothing to be desired! It is more efficient, burning 12 to 15 grains LESS powder, is 2 lbs lighter with about the same recoil. It’s cheaper to run in other words, and is LESS of a burden to carry all day while providing equal results! Plus, a NEW .375 H&H may cost 2X the $$!

When I honestly weigh all these issues… I’m more than satisfied with the choice I made. Another plus is that this TIKKA has a Sako match-grade barrel… and it shows. Almost anything fed it thus far shoots MOA or better.

‘Til next time,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

This is what it looked like last week.

Within three weeks the scenery has dramatically changed with the season. So the bears now know where to look before approaching the bait site. In fact, I had a bear come in last week while I was climbing into my treestand. It only returned one more time, giving me a brief look, and then was gone for the rest of the evening. It “knew” I was there.

Bears are VERY intelligent. It doesn’t take them long to figure things out! Within two days of erecting my treestand (a few days before Ben got his in place)these claw marks were found on “My Tree” right up to the seat! They were made by “That Big Bear” (about 350 – 400 lbs)that killed the black stallion last year.

NOW, look at my treestand! And Ben’s, if you can find it

So, you see what we’re up against! But it has been an adventure, and a beautiful fall season.

Oh yes, in case you’re wondering, Ben did get his bear… not “That Big One”, but a medium, good eatin’ sized one! That was on the 15th of September at around 5:15 PM. Yes, he shot it with his 300 Win Mag from his treestand at about 55 yds. The bear was still moving when he fired, and shooting at a downward angle it took out the right shoulder and one lung, then the bullet exited near the sternum. The bear was still mobile and he shot it again going away. It was about finished, but I “paid the insurance”, as they like to say in African safaris. Here’s Ben preparing and testing his treestand:

Yes, on the first time in stand, he saw “the big one” sleeping under these trees, but couldn’t see it’s head so wouldn’t fire. I couldn’t see it because branches blocked my view. The week after he shot the bear, he was checking his trail cam and as he turned to leave, he saw “That Big One” coming toward him on the trail we use to deliver the bait. He said it would go “over 400 lbs” in his estimation. The pics show how deep the grass was/is, and how difficult it is to see any bear when we are not in our stands. Something like a safari for lion or leopard… perhaps?

Our stands are located in the denser trees just over the front end of my van. The bait is located near where the back end of my van would be. This pic was taken a few days before Ben shot his bear in mid-September. The point is: the grass was still 3+ ft tall, mixed with goldenrod, thorn bushes, weeds and wild flowers of various kinds. So hunting from treestands was an absolute necessity.

Here’s a pic from my stand, looking toward the bait (the faint white bucket)a couple of days after Ben shot his.

What were we using for bullets/loads? Ben was using his 300 Winnie with handloads I put together for him last year: 190gr Hornady BTs at 2950 fps. How well did they work? Very well! The first broke the right shoulder (though a tad low)and made exit at the sternum. The second was a going away shot at around 30 yds (the bear ran as best it could on three legs towards us — it didn’t know where the shot came from)that surgically removed the left hind leg at the knee and went up into the body cavity and rested against the opposite flank near the short ribs. But that bear was very determined… it was still “porpoising” through three feet of grass and other vegatation away from us, on two legs (a left front and a rear right!)until I put in a finisher through the right chest which took out three inches of spine as it joins with the neck. The bullet made exit but left only a bullet-size hole at the back of the neck. Right there, the fur and hide was thick and heavy, and no wound was apparent until we pulled off the hide. Both Hornadys did their jobs. Mine, was the 286gr from my 9.3 X 62 at near muzzle velocity. The shot was at five yards.

Here’s a scene from our immediate hunting area as it looks today:

That’s all for now… more next time!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL