Long Range Shooting of Big Game – P2

The following equipment is absolutely necessary in shooting big game at long range. And that’s in addition to all that has been presented in P1.

I’ve mentioned that “long range” for myself is any distance beyond 300 yards. For some hunters it might be far less. We must know the limits of our ability and confidence.

(That’s 350 yards to the top of the 300 yard berm on the horizon. Left click on pic for a better view.)

But if we intend or plan to shoot game animals at whatever range they might present a clear shot, say 400 yards to 750 yards, then we will need more, much more, that bravado! In addition to sane judgement we will need:

1) The right rifle

2) The right rifle scope.

3) A chronograph.

4) A range finder.

5) A spotting scope.

6) Binoculars.

Leave out any one of those factors and we will not only reveal a lack of knowledge, but also of sound judgement.

The right rifle is the one right for me or you, and they will be distinct in caliber and perhaps different in configuration. A number of rifle cartridges were briefly discussed in P1, along with some of the rifles chambered for them. 

<(My former CZ550 in .458 Win Mag)

The .458 Winchester Magnum was mentioned as a possible long -range rifle cartridge for myself in the far north of our Province of Ontario, if moose were the target animal. Yet I recognise that it would not be for the majority of others.  At our range this morning a couple of hunter-shooters were curious about my “elephant gun”. I’ve explained to quite a few members over the past few years that a .458 Win Mag makes an excellent medium game cartridge for North America if you make your own handloads. When it’s pointed out that it can be loaded like a mild to hot .45-70, and show them some of those loads, their eyes widen and ears pick up!

I briefly referred to the 400gr Barnes X-Bullet at near 2600 fps as a possible long range number for moose to 600 yards. Because of its claimed .457 BC it would still be making over 1600 fps, enough for some expansion, according to Barnes promotion of their “X” and “TSX” bullets.

But all that is THEORY until proven! I never expect to be shooting any live game at 600 yards during the rest of my earthly existence, and never have, so it’s a moot point. And I don’t have access to a range that allows shooting beyond 300 yards. But if I were 34 instead of 1/2 century older, I might like to have the opportunity to prove all that to myself as well as for the benefit of others. Still, it will continue to ONLY be theory until someone comes up with a big game 400gr bullet in .458-cal and a BC of .457!

In general, I much prefer to prove through experience that what I write about is more than theory. I want it to be factual. But the bare truth is that with the proliferation of very sleek and high numbered BC big-game bullets today, we (most of us) can’t test them all — and certainly NOT at ranges beyond about 500 yards. So, I write theoretically sometimes with the hope that someone “out there” will be able to confirm or deny that certain bullets will work as promoted at near or far ranges.

The 350gr TSX in .458-cal was loaded for a moose hunt in N. Ontario in 2008, as previously mentioned. But I was a bit “on the horns of a dilemma” as to it’s actual ballistic coefficient. That matters! I couldn’t understand, when talking with “Ty” at Barnes, how the 350gr X-Bullet in .458″ could have a BC of .402 with one groove and when it was reintroduced with three grooves the BC was drastically downgraded to .278. That’s a BC of merely 69% of its former value! So, what’s with that Ty? Something smelled “fishy” to me (and I should know as I’ve dressed out many thousands of haddock, pollock, cod, ect. in younger years as the third son of a commercial fisherman in Eastern Canada)! So I went to work at our limited 300 yard range to do some testing of that bullet in my CZ550, .458 Winchester Magnum.

First, a chronograph was used to ascertain the MV. Then that load was shot at 100 yards to establish POI, followed by shots at 300 yards to determine POI. From the drop at 300 yards it was easy to calculate the approximate BC of the 350gr TSX. I also used data from the Accurate Reloading Forum provided by “Michael 458” in testing that bullet at his home range. He provided MV and velocity at target. All matters considered, my calculations gave a BC of .328 for the 350gr TSX, while Michael’s was higher still.

This past summer I tested the 350 TSX in my Ruger Tropical in .458, and the following MV was recorded at 15 feet from the muzzle. Corrected to MV that would be 2780 fps. Employing a BC of .328 we get the following results to 500 yards:

MV = 2780 fps/6005 ft-lbs/ -1.60″/ 236 MTE

100 = 2513 fps/4908 ft-lbs/ +3.36″/ 193 MTE

200 = 2262 fps/3975 ft-lbs/ +2.78″/ 156 MTE 

300 = 2025 fps/3186 ft-lbs/ -4.63″/ 125 MTE

400 = 1804 fps/2528 ft-lbs/ -20.5″/ 99 MTE

500 = 1601 fps/1991 ft-lbs/ -47.2″/ 78 MTE (good for a 1500 to 2000 lb soft-skinned animal) 

Recoil: 48 ft-lbs from the Ruger with 5 cartridges in a stock “sock” @ 10.65 lbs, and Mag-na-ported

Ambient conditions: elevation @ 1150 ft. Temp: 50*F. 58% RH.

I could live with that and be “happy as a haddock in the Atlantic”.

That was to show what could be done with a .458 Win Mag if “want to try something different” was bigger than what the writers endlessly rehash… you know, “You need a .270 or .30-06. But if you want more, there’s always a .338 Win Mag.”

Where theory and reality might clash is when the trigger is squeezed in the field. Happy is the hunter whose theory is confirmed and not devastated!

In truth, more big game have been “harvested” with numbers like the .30-30, .308 Win, .270, 7mms, .30-06, and .300 magnums than anything else on the N.A. continent. Yet for the travelling sportsman who has a few years in the field, a new rifle firing a different cartridge adds zest to a sagging enthusiasm.

Where does one hunt and shoot game that stretches bullet trajectory to, say, 750 yards? And how do we know it’s 750 and not 450 without the use of a range finder ? You know, it’s always the fish that got away that’s much bigger than any in the boat!

And how do we assess the size and sex of the game without a rifle scope ideal for such hubris?  Having more than a few years in the field should have taught us something about our ability no matter the power and cost of the rifle with its ancillary equipment! Does a $2500 rifle scope decked out with adjustments fore and aft, on top and both sides, qualify us to pull the trigger on our custom super-magnums on live game at 750 to 1000 yards? I’ve owned some very accurate rifles with handloads and decent scopes, but I’ve never been where such a shot was wise or even possible. A broadside adult moose is a large target, as also some others are, but to stake my reputation only on the Long Range Internet forums would be a grave mistake in my view. Yet there appears to be a certain growing number who sacrifice the joy of mere hunting on God’s earth for the sake of antler points at unforgivable distances, all with the intent of making a name for themselves.  “And I want you to know that I shot that ram at 458 long yards according to my Zeiss range finder. At the shot he fell off the cliff and tumbled for 350 yards to the bottom… and the horns were not damaged… see for yourself! Am I not wonderful?”

A spotting scope: Only if needed, otherwise it will become added weight and take up space in a backpack. It’s intended as a complement to the rifle scope when range denies important details. A few years ago I watched a video of a black bear hunt on Vancouver Island. Two men were involved, but only one was the shooter. The other used a spotting scope. An excellent shot was made on an approximate 350 lb bear at just over 500 yards. All was set up prior to the shot across a valley. The bear immediately disappeared into thick bush and fell into a ravine that took over two hours to retrieve. All of the equipment was specialised, including the rifle… AND the shooter! He had fired OVER 1000 shots using the same rifle and load in PRACTICE! 

Binoculars: I consider them optional for long-range shooting if a spotting scope is on board. Yet, I’ve actually used binoculars a lot in hunting – over bear baits in particular. For bait hunting bear, when they might only show up at the last dying legal minutes of the hunt, a good 7×35 or 8×40 are tops in my experience. 

As to a recommendation of a rifle and cartridge for the dedicated long-range hunter-shooter, he/she doesn’t need my recommendation, but it would be hard to beat something in a super .338 magnum, such as a .340 Weatherby, .338 RUM or .338 Lapua. And that’s due to a couple of factors: the SD of .338 projectiles, hence also their BCs. They also can be pushed at decent speeds without major physical trauma to the body. 

< (That was my .340 Wby Mag in hand.)

In writing on “Long-Range Hunting”, I couldn’t have stated my feelings better than Dan Schindler, Founder, Owner and Manager of Paragon School of Sporting Inc.. He’s become a friend through frequent correspondence. Dan is a trainer of trainers in sporting clays and wing shooting, as well as in rifle.

“Collect all the gear you want and be rightfully proud of what you have purchased. Seriously, good on you. But have no delusions about that gear assuring you of a 1 shot, 1 kill at very long distances. That responsibility falls directly on your shoulders and should weigh heavily as you contemplate pulling the trigger.”

Well said Dan!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

Long Range Shooting of Big Game – P1

The topic is shooting BIG GAME at long range, not varmints or targets at long range. I was recently on a well known forum to do some research on the Long Range section. Almost without exception it was focused on small bore target and varmint cartridges and rifles, commencing with various .223 calibers up to the 6.5s, with the 6’s and 6.5 Creedmoors dominating.

No doubt that some .264 calibers are adequate for smaller, non dangerous game, like whitetail deer at 300 and perhaps 400 yards, especially in numbers like the .264 Winchester. However, for the slower 6.5s, such as the 6.5 x 55 and even the Creedmore, I’d not stretch the range much beyond 400 for large northern bucks.

Depending on the bullet used, a 140gr SST Hornady at 2725 fps from a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 24″ barrel, as one example, has enough “put down” for a 400 to 500 lb game animal at 400 yards. For a dangerous predator like bear, I’d one-half that. So it’s without any doubt a capable deer cartridge at relatively long range. For a large elk or moose, and even a good bear, I’d choose something with more than 1300 ft-lbs at 400 yards. The .264 Winchester Magnum will do at 550 yards (same energy) what the 6.5 Creed can do at 400. I think those two are more or less representative of the 6.5 clan.

Some will of course object, claiming the 6.5 Swede has terminated many moose. But please give me the conditions including the ranges. Sure, you could terminate any moose with a .22LR, 40gr solid to the brain! I watch quite a few videos of hunting big game both here and foreign. Rarely is the cartridge mentioned. I just watched Jim Shockey take a brown bear in Russia, as well as a mountain sheep similar to those in the Rockies, all with the same rifle but never once was the cartridge mentioned!

These 5 Mini-Mags where fired from my CZ455 in .22LR one week ago at our range at 100 yards. They would “stop” a bear hit in the brain! I’ve carried a .22 LR for small game and have little doubt I could deter or stop a bear with it in a “have to” situation at 15 feet. That’s NOT to say it would be a sane choice for bear defensive purposes >

For me, long range hunting and shooting of big game and dangerous predators begin with the 7mm Magnums, and the 7 Remington Magnum in particular (The Weatherby is similar with perhaps 50 to 100 fps advantage depending on barrel lengths, psi and bullets used.)

I bypass the .270 Winchester, though it’s a decent long range cartridge for whitetails, mule deer, etc., yet for large bull elk, moose or larger bears at 400+ yards I’d suggest the 7 magnums as minimum. Yeah, I know there will be those who have killed elk (what size and sex?) at 600 yards using O’Conner’s favorite in the West. I’d consider that “stunt” shooting! And the claim is with a 130gr !!! I seriously doubt that anyone with a modicum of ballistic knowledge (and experience) CHOOSES a 130gr out of a .270 Win for serious long range shooting of a mature bull elk these days!

Consider the following:

Cartridge: .270 Winchester

Barrel: 24″

Bullet: 130gr Nosler Partition (SD = .242; BC = .416

MV @ 3158 fps (right out of Nosler’s #6 manual)

400 yds = 2317 fps/ 1550 ft-lbs/ 22.5 MTE (from 400 lbs to 600 lbs depending on shot placement)

500 yds = 2130 fps/ 1310 ft-lbs/ 19 MTE (from 350 lbs to 500 lbs depending on shot placement)

600 yds = 1952 fps/ 1100 ft-lbs/ 16 MTE (from 300 lbs to 400 lbs depending on shot placement)*

*Those are estimates based on real ballistic results from the 130gr Nosler Partition at the given ranges, assuming body shots, not central-nervous-system (CNS) hits. It’s possible, of course, for the bullet to strike the spine (spinal cord) and drop the animal where it stands without killing it. At those ranges (long range) that would typically be a “lucky” shot, not the result of precision shooting. It happens, but it shouldn’t be taken for granted or planned that way.

So while the .270 Win might be adequate for cow elk and/or not fully mature elk of 300 to 500 lbs at 500 yards or so, it certainly would not be close to a first choice for myself as a long range rifle/cartridge for game that exceeds 500 lbs. Therefore, as stated, I’d recommend a 7 Rem Mag over a .270 Win any day of the hunting season for big game that might involve long range shooting. But then, my personal choice in a sub-medium would be more than the 7 magnums. That’s up-coming.

My Ruger No.1 in 7 Rem Mag (Similar to pic on left but with a 26″ barrel.) would fire the 175gr Nosler Partition at 3015 fps. In other words, that would equal the .270 Win shooting a 140gr Partition in muzzle velocity. And, of course, the 175gr, 7mm has an SD of .301 compared to the 140gr, .277″ at .261. Not only is there little comparison in energy (despite some, who ought to know better, claiming the 7 Rem Mag has little to offer over the .270 Win!) but momentum favors the 7 RM by 25% at the muzzle which increases down range because of a superior BC of .519 for the 7mm over .432 for the 140gr NP in .277″. 

However that may be, the number one common cartridge in use for long range shooting of all BG from 300 lbs to 1000 lbs (where one rifle and load would be chosen) is the .300 Winchester Magnum, or it’s equivalent. Personally speaking, a .300 Win Mag has been, and would be, the minimum choice for the potential long range shooting — to 500 +yards — of a mature Canadian bull moose. When I chose to take my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag to Northern Ontario with a bull tag for moose in my pocket, loaded with the 350gr TSX at 2750 fps, my backup rifle was a .300 Winchester Magnum.  

But certain conditions apply: If a pro guide or outfitter is involved in a place like Alaska, then a long range shot would NOT be permitted on a mature moose or brown bear, as a couple of examples. So, we’re talking hunts by residents of a state or province where such restrictions don’t apply. In a DIY hunt for elk or caribou, for instance, the hunter is on his own to make such decisions. And, without doubt, he’s already aware of potential scenarios. If he’s acquainted with the region of the hunt, he should know in advance what his rifle and load is capable of, and what he is capable of in its use under all conditions.  

If I should ever make that trip again to N. Ontario for a bull moose, I’d have to be ready for a shot at 25 yards to 600 yards. That could be my current Ruger No.1 in .458, but not the 350gr TSX even at near 2800 fps. Why? Because it has a relatively poor BC of only around .300 (Barnes says .278. I think it’s a bit more from former tests — but that depends on several factors including the barrel.) For that bullet to expand — which it must to produce a killing shot — it needs at least 1600 fps impact, which it has somewhere between 400 yds and 450 yds. But if the bull is at 550 yds, what then? The bullet I’d actually use is the former 400gr X-bullet with a BC of .457, and an MV from my 24″ Ruger No.1 of nearly 2600 fps (2590 fps in actual tests). At 600 yds it should still be making over 1600 fps and about 2300 ft-lbs. But the drop from a zero of 250 yards is about 7 feet (-83″). All of which assumes that I’d have a range finder, little wind and a firm kneeling or standing rest. In other words, the rifle and load might be capable, but would the shooter be?

That was to simply show that a rifle and load capable for the heaviest target (BG, not DG) from 25 yards to 600 yards imposes on the shooter that he has adequate control, knowledge and experience as a rifleman and hunter. It’s totally irresponsible on the part of ANY hunter just to fling bullets into the air        (“Hail Marys”) hoping that one will connect with the animal in the right place. We must have a reasoned confidence that ANY shot, close or far, will hit the animal — at the very least — in a part that will put it on the ground within a reasonable distance, allowing it to be retrieved. Perhaps a “finisher” will need be applied at closer range.

I would only take a 500 – 600 yard shot if that were all that conditions allowed. Getting closer should always be a goal — but idealism may cause the loss of one chance in a thousand if the animal is spooked by the hunter’s movements, or decides to depart into nearby timber or bush or a lake (you can’t lawfully shoot them while swimming).

Be assured, that none should just assume they can make “that shot” without adequate preparation through knowledge of the bullet’s trajectory and exit velocity from the muzzle of the rifle, as well as realistic practice with BOTH rifle and load!

Til the next… Theory vs Experience. (I believe in both, and practice both. And so do you if you know that man actually landed and walked on the moon! And so do we if we’ve ever earnestly prayed and literally had those prayers answered in a way that confirmed our faith that God is real and both hears and answers the prayers of those who love and trust Him. Mere theology? Not if it works!) For instance: Have you used a chronograph to confirm your expectations of long range shooting? That too will be discussed next time.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

How to Hunt a Black Bear – P4

So far in this series, we’ve considered: 1) Baiting; 2) Calling, and 3) Still hunting in P3.

This time we look at: 4) Spot-n-stalk, and 5) Hound hunting. In addition, further observations and conclusions will be made. 

SPOT-N-STALK: This I’ve only done during the Calling episode described in P3. And it was very brief. I’d started to follow the big bear I’d called in before deciding to let it go rather than shoot it in the rump. Otherwise, I’ve never seen a non-wounded bear that I could track.

This is more of a type of bear hunting in the west of North America in more open country, such as the foothills of the Rockies or Vancouver Island with huge swaths of clear cut timber. It could conceivably be done in other areas where clear cutting has taken place, or on thousands of acres of open agriculture land with intermittent blocks of timber or bush. I know it’s done occasionally in western Canadian provinces.

As the term suggests, it’s a matter of sighting a bear in whatever conditions and being able to track it with the hope of closing the distance which makes possible a clear shot. It also involves a possible offhand shot if that’s the only one available should the bear be moving, or will quickly disappear interminably into thick timber or a ravine.

(It would have been possible to have seen and tracked a bear here in the open ^ as there were several old clear cuts. There were also huge piles of bear scat and wolf scat. I had licences for each as well as a moose ticket and one for a buck whitetail. However, my mission was a bull moose in N. Ontario. That was my CZ550 in .458 over my shoulder loaded with 350gr Barnes TSX’s at 2750 fps.) 

Some hunters prefer this style as it seems more “natural”. That is, it’s the traditional form of what has been termed “fair chase”. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as those hunters don’t become “snobbish” and look down on, or despise, others who prefer a more practical approach, as in baiting or with hounds.

With increasing costs of all forms of hunting, and limited time compared to those who “live off the land” where fauna may habituate, spot-n-stalk will suite few whose lives are consumed by urban living in big cities.

HOUND HUNTING:  I’ve never done it and never intend to! I don’t keep hounds and have never even owned a pet poodle! Plus the fact, it appears, from what I’ve read and watched on video, that you need to be somewhat superhuman to keep up with the “traffic” of bear, hounds and professionals who do this day-in-and-out! NO THANKS at any age, but specifically past 60 years or so! Then, I don’t like the idea of shooting little bears out of trees, which most appear to be! 

However, a huge bear was shot in the area of my traditional bait setup — done so by hound hunters! So it must work for some. But they killed “my bear”! It dressed out at 568 lbs! That’s about a 650 lb black bear when alive and feeding on the goodies I presented at my bait site!

No resentment though… it was legal and fair chase… sort of.                                                                       

(Left click on photo for a better view. This was the site where the 650 lb bear was in frequent attendance. But he was nocturnal.)

The amount of equipment and costs for a professional operation is astounding: 4×4 pickups, ATVs, radios and radio collars for the hounds, GPS’s, and fit men to operate all that in addition to keeping track of a half-dozen hounds, or more, staggers my imagination… I can’t begin to relate! 

Short-barrelled lever-action rifles, or big-bore handguns and 12ga with slugs would seem best under a tree if there’s a bear “up there”… But if it weighs +400 lbs, don’t stand too close to the tree!

It probably is for those with “ants in their pants”!  

There you have it: Five styles or methods of black bear hunting. Which would you choose? Tell me if you’d like to, or if you’ve done so. 

Coming up for the balance of September will be a presentation on long-range shooting of game and predators. 

A few days ago, I was reminded by a friend that the so-called “big bears” (grizzly) have been killed by the 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher a hundred years ago. Of course, precise details were not available, but as I checked that idea using my MTE formula, and adding a few more fps than the 6.5 Mannlicher…, I conceded that it could be done using a good 160gr at 2400 fps at close range.  Of course, “close range” is more like 25 feet, not long range at 500 yards (1500 feet)! So, long-range shooting of game is how far according to you? I consider 300 yards, and beyond, long range. But the longest range that I’ve ever shot anything was groundhog at 340 yards, and it’s much more challenging to successfully kill a 5 lb animal with a single shot at 340 yards than, say, an elk at twice that distance, assuming adequate ballistics for each! 

To add some spice to the notion of killing a “large predator”, such as a grizzly, with a puny 6.5 x 55 Swede, of which I’ve owned the grand total of two, and handloaded each, let me say that after a “fiasco” involving the hunt of a big Northern Whitetail buck with mine, I never used it again! And I’ll explain why in my next blog. 

Yet bear have been terminated using the lowly .22 LR! So was a lion finished off in Africa with the use of a single-shot from the same, as was a wild African cow with Texas-like horns by the same rifle and hunter! So there are exceptions, sometimes in the extreme, to what we think we know!

Long range is how far, and under what conditions? What is your longest successful shot on a predator or BG animal? As you mull that over, I’ll be writing my thoughts and prognostications.

<It’s about 425 yards from where I stood for this photo to the farthest corner of the bog where the skyline of trees sharply drops and appears smallest .

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL 

 

How to Hunt a Black Bear — P3

Please refer back to P1 and P2 prior to reading P3, if you’ve not done so, as this final part assumes you have.

Regarding bullets for black bear: 

1) Larger is better than smaller as they break bones more readily and create quicker loss of blood pressure , assuming ideal construction, weight (SD), profile and impact velocity; all of which needs further clarification.

The importance of the above principle is manifest in larger bears where not just killing them is the goal, but stopping them in their tracks where matters could very easily get out of control, such as in a big bear attack or one escaping, wounded, into unsafe physical conditions, as in a swamp or ravine. Over 90% of my bear hunts have involved those kinds of physical surroundings. Such has immeasurably influenced my choice of not only the rifles, but the cartridges and bullets for which they were chambered.

While I’ve tried a few others, including some “mediums” (my take on “Mediums” is mid-bores: .338 to .375 calibers), rifles chambered for the venerable .45-70s, using smokeless powder and heavy bullets, have proven themselves to not only kill bears but stop them in their tracks. This is not only true of the .45-70 but the .458 Win Mag when loaded to the equivalent of “hot” .45-70 loads.  And only two of those involved so-called CNS hits, or head shots, all others were body shots at varying angles: quartering away or toward, broadside, frontal, and from above that missed the spine but took out lungs and heart.

The first that involved the spine and head had already penetrated from just in front of the left hip, through liver and guts before taking out 6 – 8 inches of spine and back of the head. That was using the 350gr Speer in a reduced load at 70 yards from my Rugger 77 in .458 Win Mag. The other involved a wounded bear trying to escape to a ravine through 30″ tall grass. It had been wounded by a young, inexperienced friend and I finally caught up enough to finish it with a going away shot, high to the short ribs that also took out four vertebrae before making exit. The bullet was a 286gr Hornady RP-SP leaving the muzzle of my 9.3 x 62 at +2400 fps. No fragments or pieces of bullet were found anywhere in the animal. It did it’s job excellently.

Such experiences, among several others, have confirmed theoretical dogma that says in effect that a large bore rifle firing a compatible bullet for the intended game at suitable speeds should produce a proportionally greater effect than a small bore rifle producing optimum ballistics from a compatible projectile. As the differences in potential terminal ballistics is lessened due to diminished dissimilarity in bore sizes, so distinctions in potential terminal ballistics should be proportional — all else equal. “All else equal” covers all other issues that might be used as a negative to the proposed principle. In other words, the “what ifs?” and “what about’s?” To simplify: A larger bore bullet needs less kinetic energy (KE) at impact than a smaller bore to bring about equal terminal effect, assuming a proper bullet in the right place from each. That’s a general principle creating the foundation of my Terminal Effect formula (MTE), but which also provides the details. One may dispute some of the details, but the principle has proven itself to me beyond reasonable doubt.

2) Bullets for bear should not be too tough or hard. They are soft-skinned game, not Pachyderms. True, their bones are generally heavier than a white-tailed deer, and their muscles are more massive and dense, but soft-pointed, controlled-expansion bullets should normally be used.

I found the 350gr Barnes TSX to be too tough on medium bear for proper expansion. One was fired from my CZ550 .458 Winchester Magnum at 2750 fps (a moose load), and at 100 yards it failed to expand hitting the bear frontally while making exit in the right flank. The bear ran off as though it had been missed… I knew it hadn’t missed! After running in a semi-circle for about 75 yards, I finally found it stone-cold-dead about 40 yards directly behind the bait setup… in pitch darkness with a flashlite! Impact was about 2450 fps/4664 ft-lbs! I know as a fact that had I used a 350gr Speer with a 3% antimony lead core inside a guilding metal jacket, and a .25″ exposed lead tip, that the bear would have been dead on impact! That bullet would have produced a DRT with an MV of 2500 fps or less! How do I know that? I flattened a bear with that same bullet from my first .458 Win Mag at 70 yards, and MV of only 2345 fps! That was a going away shot that I’ve already mentioned on several occasions.

So it’s vital to use a bullet of appropriate construction. Not too hard, and with a tip that will cause expansion, whether a FT, HP or SP. If there is an exception to that it would be a heavy flat-point hard-cast lead bullet at modest velocity. They seem to work all out of proportion to their construction and design. At least that was true on one 6′ bear that was flattened in tall grass (another in tall grass on the same private property that was facing me at 70 yards — but a different year) so quickly I lost sight of him. It was a 465gr at 1900 fps from a single-shot New England Firearms (NEF) that shot three into 1″ at 100 yards. The bullet was never found and had buried itself somewhere beneath the turf. At impact it was going something over 1700 fps.

3) Bullets for bear should not be too soft: They will over-expand or fragment. They might very well kill the animal but penetration will not reach the vitals unless a broadside hit is made. I had that experience on my first bear using the 400gr Speer from an 1895 Marlin, as recorded in former blogs. Today, Speer identifies that bullet as a “target bullet”, NOT a hunting bullet! The .458″ “hunting bullet” is their 350gr FP.

STYLE of Bear Hunting: There are typically five styles or methods: 1)Still hunting, 2)Spot-n-stalk, 3)Calling, 4)Baiting and 5)Hound hunting.

Baiting is the most common in Ontario and, as stated, over 90% of my bear hunts have been of that type. That is how I began with an outfitter in the northeast of our province — which is largely unspoiled wilderness. A total of eight trips in seven years were greatly enjoyed in that region of Ontario employing the same outfitter. That involved at least a dozen distinct locations with variable physical conditions.  For example, one year I was moved to three different locations over four days for one reason or another. In addition, I assisted Norm (the outfitter) in checking baits before noon, and almost always brought bait to the location I would be hunting that day. So, I learned the game of hunting bear over bait.

Ranges varied from 35 yards to 150 yards, and he had command of a huge area (BMW) where 85 distinct baits were located — and none closer than 5 km (3 miles) to another. Involving hunters this way kept costs down both for himself and the hunters. For myself, and most others, that made the hunt more challenging and satisfying. My largest bear, and most challenging in several ways, was my first – a seven-year old good size male that had been in a few fights for control of the area.

Baiting bear is NOT as imagined by self-styled elitists — like shooting fish in a bowl! On the contrary! “Trophy-quality” bears are very smart and cautious! Often they are dominant. They didn’t get to be that way by careless behaviour or being dumb! Because of the physical nature of the northeast of our province, as well as several other parts of the Northeast of the North American Continent, the best method for bear hunting is using bait where legal. The reason? It should be obvious: you might accidentally run into one if you spend much time in these near wildernesses, but you could spend a full lifetime chasing whitetails, moose, wolf… or whatever, without ever personally sighting a black bear. Wilderness bears are secretive and very elusive! Of all the thirty plus years of hunting them, I’ve only seen one that was not coming to a bait! That one was coming to my moose call!

CALLING black bear: I recall an article in one of the hunting/shooting mags by Rick Jamison or Jon Sundra, (I forget which) over twenty years ago. He was hunting black bear by using a call in thick brush and timber… and he was alone! As I recall, his firearm was a short  Browning BLR in .358 Winchester — a very good choice for that type of hunt in my estimation. After several attempts, a good bear surprised him by coming full tilt from behind the fat tree that was serving as his back rest! The bear believing there was a good meal awaiting on the far side of the tree almost landed in the lap of its pursuer before the hunter could gather his wits about him as to what was actually happening! But instinct and reflexes took command and the black bruin was shot in the face or chest at mere inches from getting its meal!

The conclusion of that article’s message was: Do not use a call for bears in such tight quarters unless you have a partner with you who is capable of instantly discerning the danger and reacting in a manner suitable for a life or death crisis, and in the use of a firearm perfect for just such a critical situation !

It was mentioned that I once called in a black bear as the sequence of moose calling! And it was a big, mature bruin headed directly toward the source of the call I had made moments before. He had crossed the trail I was on about 40 to 50 yards below me, and stopped when he heard my steps crunching dry autumn leaves.  It became a standoff for what seemed like a couple of minutes! Though likely it was a matter of 30 seconds at most even though time seems to stand still! He then swung his head in my direction and sniffed the air… I doubt that he saw me as I made myself a part of the hardwood. I chose not to fire my 1895 Marlin in his direction — though it was loaded for bear and I had an unfilled bear licence. The reason seemed complex at the time. First, I was alone and 90 kilometres from home and anyone I knew,  then there was a 6 – 8 inch tree that blocked the area of his broadside chest that contained vitals, plus it was late in the day… I didn’t want him to go into the very thick tangle of brush and timber close by. While I mulled this, he made the decision for me. He put down his head and took off in the direction he was headed in a hurried pace! I followed for a bit and decided to let him go and not shoot him in the rump!

He stopped here, near the bottom center of the pic, I was above him to the right at about 35 yards. After perhaps 30 seconds he left straight ahead toward the center of the photo. (Left click on pics for a better view.)

That was over fifteen years ago, and just last year I revisited the site, taking some pics and my new-to-me Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum. I also had an electronic caller along that fit into the palm of my hand. I experimented with it for about ten minutes without any virtual results. But… it was an enjoyable trek in that semi-wilderness. My “plan”, contingent on a number of personal priorities and relationships, is to visit the area again this fall with a bear licence, small game licence, and a wolf tag in my wallet. Right now, the very first priority is to settle on a load for my Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag. It will be a modest load that will also command respect for its accuracy. Still a work in progress…

Still hunting black bear: I’ve done that as I’ve walked many of the trails in Haliburton Highlands. In doing so, I’ve toted handloaded rifles suited for the cause. Most have been mentioned in past articles, but for a review here are some of them: 25-06; 7 Rem Mag; 7 Wby Mag; .300 Win Mag; .35 Whelen; .350 Rem Mag; 9.3 x 62; .375 H&H; .44 Rem; .45-70s (several); .458 Win Mag; 12ga with slugs. And there may have been others that were used incidentally while scouting or deer and wolf hunting that I don’t recall at the moment.

Still hunting black bear on purpose is a skill to be honed in looking for and inspecting sign such as claw marks on trees, scat and paw prints. Discerning age of the sign, location in proximity to food, water and bedding are all important to success in planning strategy, as well as approximate size of the quarry.

Still hunting is an oxymoron in thick brush — the breaking of dry branches from trees and on the ground is the main enemy of still hunting. In more open timber it’s possible with great carefulness and patience, but using trails, watching for movement ahead and off to the sides, noticing physical signs is the best strategy.

Still hunting is more adaptive to those with keen senses, lots of patient endurance and outdoors’ savvy.

It’s not suited to those with “ants in their pants”, wanting lots of action right NOW!

 

Coming up: more on this theme in P4

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

 

How to Hunt a Black Bear — P2 (Strategy)

So you’ve decided to hunt a black bear! Do you have a strategy? It’s strategic to have answers to the following questions:

1. Where — in your own State, Province or Territory? Foreign or domestic?
2. When
3. How – with a friend, solo, or paying an outfitter? Still hunting? Stalking? Baiting?
4. Costs
5. Transportation
6. Equipment — rifle and load, tent or camper? Camping gear or returning to home base at end of each day?
7. What size bear? Trophy or any reasonable bear?
8. Wilderness or private property?
9. Retrieval
10. What to do with meat and hide?
11. Anything else?

Planning therefore involves these matters: Location; Dates; Who will be involved; How; Economics; Means of travel; Equipment; A “trophy” or not; And management after the bear is shot.

Usually, it goes something like this: A friend who is a fellow hunter suggests a bear hunt. Then the discussion begins that ultimately includes all of the above pieces. That may take a year to get all the parts together — or maybe only a few months or even weeks.  If an outfitter is involved, you should check references. And if an outfitter IS to be involved, he should be contacted about a year in advance to secure dates. A down-payment will be expected.

If it’s a DIY hunt with a friend, make sure that each partner knows what his job is.  If it’s solo, make a detailed check list, and check off each item when fulfilled — not leaving anything behind. It’s very embarrassing to set up your camp only to not find the cartridges for your rifle! It happens! Several times I’ve run into members at our range who had to go home for their ammo! I’ve even gone a couple of times without targets! On my first trip to the far north of our province on a moose hunt, I travelled with a younger partner in his very old Dodge bus pulling an older leaky camping trailer! I asked what my expected costs would be for gasoline… he said “a couple hundred”. As it turned out, when the engine didn’t stall every time we had to stop, we were getting about 8 mpg, with costs in the Far North of over $1 per litre! An Imperial gallon holds about 4.5 litres = $4.50 per gallon. That was twenty-five years ago. The total trip was approximately 2000 miles/3200 kms. 2000/8 = 250 gallons x $4.50 = $1125!!! And I was responsible for 1/2 of that, having been told my share would be $200! That’s merely an example of how poor planning can be very costly in more ways than one!

Also, on a third trip to the same area with another partner, he couldn’t get away for the first week of the hunt so by the time we got there the moose had already been shot or driven deeper into no-man’s land! I had learned on a second trip, with son Phil, to go early, set up camp, do some scouting and be ready for opening day. I scored the first day of the hunt because I knew where to find a good bull. Realistic planning should be non-negotiable for self and a partner. Wishful thinking without realistic plans results in whistling in the breeze on the way home!

Mentally talk yourself through a hunt. Picture in your mind a good bear coming to your bait — from what direction? Mentally run through the practice of patience for the right angle and shot — something like a bow hunter. Or, running into a bear on a trail… or behind some brush, or…

Practice in a wooded area of quickly picking an object — deadfall, rock or stump — aim and fire (dry fire) until everything becomes normal. At times I visit the bush (an hour from home) to practice just like that without firing a live round. But sometimes at the end I will fire a shot for realism. (Some pics of that from my Ruger #1 in .458 Win Mag).

The deal is not to leave anything to chance as much as it depends on you to be well prepared. If a guide/outfitter is involved then, of course, we expect him/her to be well prepared for the details they’re responsible for.

WHERE? – If out of state, province, territory or foreign.

Find the right people for contact. That might be an agent, outfitter or friend. Phone calls and paperwork will be involved — lots of it.

TRANSPORTATION – To and from destination. Depending on type of hunt and where, you may have to use your own vehicle or a friend’s, or both. If you live south of the border (USA) and want to hunt in Canada, using your own pickup, SUV or car will be the best means for a number of practical reasons. If from Europe or Australia then employing an airline is the only alternative. The outfitter will pick you up at the airport and provide transportation thereafter, unless, of course, you rent a vehicle at the airport.

WHAT SIZE BEAR? – “Trophy” only or any reasonably-sized one? Depending on expectations and where we hunt will answer that question for us.

In a DIY bear hunt there are many potential variables. Depending on where we live, and accessibility to Crown Land, and knowledge thereof, we may decide that’s the best bet. Or, on the other hand, we may know people that either own appropriate land or have access to private property. Such was briefly discussed in P1. But there’s a downside to private land: is there proof of bear activity? If so, is it seasonally specific. It’s not enough for someone to tell you that so-and-so has bears on their property! “When, how often and why?” are important questions.

I once set up baits (two locations) on a farm only 10 kms (6 miles) from my house. A huge bear had killed, and eaten, a cow and calf on that farm. I was told of this by a CO friend and asked if I’d be willing to hunt that bear over baits. The bear was estimated at +500 lbs. He flattened fences and slept in the tall grass — I saw evidence for that as well as the bones of the cow that was dragged in the very thick wooded part of the property. I set up two baits in different locations. I sat over the one closest to the woodland that also descended into a swamp. Let me tell you, that was the spookiest bear bait site I’ve ever attended. The bear avoided both baits but continued his nefarious activities. After a week, I was scheduled to leave for a moose hunt in N. Ontario.

Sometime later that bear was trapped and shot. A man in the area had a license for trapping and shooting nuisance bears. Indeed, that bear went over 550 lbs! So on private agricultural land there are “trophy” quality bears! Out of the corn fields of North Carolina some huge bears have been taken.

But then, what IS a “trophy” bear?

I’ve discussed “What size bear?” in advance of suggesting a rifle and load because there’s obviously a great distinction in size between a young immature bear of 120 lbs and a mature male of 550 lbs! I’ve had some of each at my baits! But if I waited to see a 550 lb boar bear at my baits during hunting hours, I might go through an entire season or three before catching one flat-footed! They have come, but mostly after hours, or on hours that the hunter isn’t in his stand (like in this pic). Bears that live that long aren’t stupid!

(Left click on pics for a better view)

So to keep a part of my sanity, I’ve settled for some “good bears” that were “trophies” for me.
A 500+lb bear is larger than the average mature male lion! And there’s always the chance of an opportunity on such a bear whether hunting private property or Crown Land (public land). So, I’ve ALWAYS gone prepared for the biggest under the most difficult circumstances, such as finding a wounded one in a swamp!

One of my partners had to do just that! I was nearby when he pulled the trigger on his BP rifle. It took nearly an hour to locate the bear in a swamp. It was dead and not nearly 500 lbs, but any wounded bear is a dangerous bear if it only weighs 120 lbs! And, in the just describe incident, it was also pitch darkness when the dead bear was located in tall swamp grass. After the shot, it ran in the opposite direction than Brian had thought. He was blinded by the smoke from the BP rifle. He finally found some blood about 50 yards from the bait site while I was still searching in the opposite direction he thought it to have gone. The blood led him in the right direction. A week later his son wounded a bear at the same location. After three days of searching with a party the bear was never found — it happens! He too was using his dad’s BP.

I’ve used many .45-70s in hunting bear, and taken several, but never with BP. They were modern loads using smokeless propellant. Unless you have significant experience successfully using BP on other big game, I’d not suggest it for a first time bear hunt.

RIFLE and LOAD – Of course, you knew I had to go there, didn’t you.

There are far too many potential physical conditions involved in bear hunts to adequately cover each one in a few paragraphs, so I’ll give it my best effort to abbreviate some major conditions.

Up front let me say that the majority of my hunts for bear have involved baiting them. In P1, I stated that if I didn’t bait bear for hunting purposes on Crown Land, I’d never see one. That’s 99% true! In British Columbia lots of bears, black and brown, are sighted by merely walking logging trails on Vancouver Island. So, if your dream black bear hunt is spot-n-stalk then I’d suggest a place on Vancouver Island with an outfitter — unless of course, you live there. In such a case you don’t need my recommendation. But, anywhere logging is practised, or has been, walking old or new trails is a very good practice. I’ve at least seen fresh bear tracks on such trails, and had I not been baiting in those areas patient waiting or walking quietly/slowly might well have been productive.

In a blog of a couple weeks ago I wrote on bullets: “Heavy and Slow vs Lite and Fast”. One of the examples I used for Heavy and Slow was my former Ruger 96/44 in .44 Rem Mag which was used both in toting bait to sites and scouting trails for bear sign. So, it’s obvious that I believe in relatively heavy bullets moving out at relatively slow velocities as being adequate for black bruins at close range.

I’ve written previously that I want the same load for both moose and bear because we can’t be certain of the bear’s attitude or size in walking a trail or in bait hunting if in tight quarters — and especially in the followup of a wounded bruin into unpleasant surroundings as in a swamp! The minimum I’ve chosen for that in TE (now MTE) is 50. The reason for such a high number for bear is rather obvious, I’d think… Bear are DG with big teeth and big claws, no matter their size, and they WILL use them in defence as well as in offence! Just yesterday in a CBC news item, crawling across the bottom of the TV screen, we were informed of a 44 year old woman, who was camping with her family, being attacked and killed by a black bear in Saskatchewan. Those who insist that all one needs to kill a black bear is their deer rifle should be more informed and honest that bambies don’t attack and kill 44 year old mothers! Sure, you can kill particular bears using your deer rifle if it’s a well loaded .308 Winchester — under specific conditions! Such an argument is a non-starter! But the mindset in hunting Texas deer with John Wootters’ favorite cartridge isn’t what he used for a big Manitoba black bruin that went over 400 lbs! He used a very specialized 1895 Marlin in .45-70 loaded “hot” with a 400gr Trophy Bonded bullet! I said something like “AMEN!” when I read that! I then discussed it with him in correspondence.

Black bears are known (officially) to not only kill calf moose in the spring, but the adult parent that tries to interfere. I watched a home-made video to that effect where a 300 -350 lb black bear took the calf from its mother in our hunting area one spring day, and all the cow could do was watch as the calf was bawling and dragged into the bushes by a small lake, still bawling — with the mother woefully looking back over its haunches, then retreating slowly in the opposite direction as the bawling calf had quit its call for help to momma moose.

So I use 12.5 instead of 25 x MTE for bear as minimum for size or class of bear, not knowing their reaction or intention before the fact. That would be adequate for a bear from 400 to 600 lbs (1/2 the weight of a moose) assuming a proper bullet in the right place. It’s unwise to try to shoot a fast moving bear in the head! Shoot for the “big middle”, as some authorities have described it when under pressure on a quick moving DG at close range.

A light, quick handling rifle of adequate caliber, or powerful big-bore handgun, or 12 ga. with slugs is the best deal under the afore-mentioned conditions — and be sure of this: Such conditions, if not frequent, are more than possible!

<That’s my 9.3 x 62 , and the bear shot with it at 6: 04 pm of the previous day. It’s 6′ from nose to tail and was gutted before hanging the evening before. The bullet was a 286gr  Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle at around 2620 fps. Range was 68 yards into center chest as it stood facing me in the tall grass. The light patch just in front of the right hip is where I found the bullet on skinning as it was just poking through the hide. That was 3 feet of penetration! It was a relatively young male with little fat. Here’s the bullet on the right as compared to two 250gr/.338 NPs from my .340 Weatherby into a moose. As retrieved it weighed 211 grains, or 74%, and it tumbled somewhere inside.

P3 will be up in a week or two.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

How To Hunt a Black Bear — P1

The number two species of big game hunted in North America is black bear. They are found in all Provinces of Canada (except Prince Edward Island (PEI)) and the Territories. In the USA most contiguous states have at least some blacks and several, like The New England States and Pennsylvania in the east and the Rocky Mountain States, have many. Then Alaska has an estimated +100,000. My home Province of Ontario also has an estimated 100,000. But no one knows for sure how many blacks make North America their home territory. And blacks are found as far south as Mexico. (Left click on pics for a better view.)

The No.1 big game that I’ve hunted, and still do on a more limited basis, is black bear. Several years ago I made the decision to invest my limited funds and time in the lawful pursuit of black bears since they were much more accessible than moose… and much cheaper to harvest.  Whitetail deer hunting fulfilled the desire to hunt big game for many years, but there were many hurdles to   overcome in having consistent success after leaving New Brunswick, since we were living in major cities like Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and Halifax.

First off, my hunts have never been west of Ontario. Other than that I’ve hunted New Brunswick (my native province), Quebec and Nova Scotia. However, mostly Ontario. Initially that began in 1978 through 1983. In early 1984 we moved to Nova Scotia and then returned to Ontario in the fall of 1987. I started hunting again in Ontario in the fall of 1988, and from then on to the present. That’s a total of thirty-five years hunting in Ontario. This year (2020) will be my thirty-sixth year in what became our home province.

Of those 35 years, I hired an outfitter for hunting black bears for eight continuous seasons from 1989 to 1996 (twice in one year). That’s where and how I learned to hunt bears in the northeast of our province. In 1997 I began bait-hunting on my own in a familiar region just over an hour’s drive to the north of where we live, in Haliburton Highlands. There, I’d hunted deer when we lived in Toronto in the early ’80’s. The region was Crown Land (Public Land in the USA). Since returning to Ontario in 1987, I’ve hunted deer, moose, wolf and coyote, rabbit, grouse and bear in various areas of the Haliburton Highlands Crown Land. And that’s much closer to us than when we lived in Toronto.  Hunting bear over bait from Toronto in a DIY type action plan would have been near impossible since it’s far too demanding. You must tend the baits regularly — at least three times weekly. In more recent times I’ve hunted both private properties (with permission) that have been closer, as well as some of my traditional sites.  A few partners were added along the way.

With all that as a background, a conservative estimate would be a total of 360 days involved in the field in scouting, baiting and hunting bears.  That’s about the equivalent of a full year in those activities. How many hours apart from research, preparing loads, testing them at a range, etc? A fair estimate would be five hours per day of those 360 days = 1800 hours. And that was distinct from the eight seasons with my outfitter, Norm Easto — at least another 200 hours.

After my first bear (with Norm), my goal was not to shoot every bear I could have, or saw, but those that presented a definite challenge. I passed on some. For several reasons, Crown Land was much more challenging than private. That was true in hunting other species as well, such as deer. Crown Land is public land but also undeveloped, rugged and heavily timbered. Private land is, well, mostly the opposite. Crops attract both deer and bear, as well as smaller creatures. If I didn’t use baits on Crown Land, I’d never see a bear — far different than developed agricultural properties, or developing properties for relatively new home owners in a fast growing community that was formerly a small country town or village. One of my former hunting partners moved further north to Sudbury. He has had bears walk into his shop/garage while he was working there! In a fast growing community in British Columbia our grandson and family have “their own bear”, as explained by their 7 yr-old daughter! A really BIG one that might surpass 500 lbs, according to our son (her grandfather) who saw it in their driveway! Not only so, but she pointed out that their neighbors along the same street, each had “their own bear” as well!

Where I’ve hunted such is definitely NOT the case! Aside from the fact that community laws (even here) will not permit shooting black bears in your driveway — not matter the size — but if you leave them alone they’ll likely wander to the next driveway! Oh, by-the-way, you may not want to leave your favorite pet outside when such wildlife visit your place! We’ve not had one in our driveway, but certainly in our community since our house is a mere stone’s throw away from a farmer’s field! We’ve lived in the same house — soon to be thirty-three years, and it’s a developing community. During the first decade we had no fences and undeveloped property to the west and south. In addition to rabbits (which we still have), we’ve had coyotes (chasing rabbits), deer and “whatnots” on our property — that’s apart from local dogs and coons which we still have in addition to the rabbits. Uhhh… yes, also a possum. And bears nearby.

But in less than a five minute drive we are surrounded by agricultural properties that attract all sorts of creatures, small to large, that are not pets!

The main advantage of hunting Crown Land is that it’s mostly wilderness — undeveloped — and no permission is required to hunt those areas other than hunting seasons and regulations. If they are chosen wisely there’s little interference or trouble from inquisitive minds or prying eyes. But that is also the downside — with today’s relatively easy access to Crown Land by recreational vehicles, there are now ATV trails where in history they were merely game trails or old logging roads. So, on Crown Land it’s been necessary to move further into remote areas making the retrieval of game much more critical. So there must be a good strategy in place for security of site and retrieval of game. In other words, you don’t just walk into the woods of Crown Land one day and set down some bait, then wait behind some trees for a bear to show up! There’s much more to it than that! Strategy will be discussed in P2.

The advantages of private land for a bear hunt are fairly obvious: Of course, you must have documented proof of access for hunting bears in season. You also need some assurance that you and any partners will be the only hunters during that time frame. You also will need freedom to choose the best location (s) for stand (s) and/or baiting. Then, there is the matter of closing any gates, and securing them, as you enter and leave. If costs are involved for access, you pay up front making sure that the agreement is fair and secure. If no costs, as in a friendly handshake, then it’s your decision as to how best to express thanks, or compensate, at the end — whether success was realized or not.

But it’s critical in hunting private land that bears are known to frequent that property. If there’s proof of that then there has to be a reason. Why are bears regularly visiting that property? There’s one of two motives — and perhaps both. Either the property has agricultural crops, like corn, or it’s a corridor for access to and from land that does. It’s as simple as that! Or it may be an old farm that still has old apple trees that still produce… or wild berry trees such as cherry. In some cases it could be nut bearing trees like acorn, or a combination of several factors. But keep in mind that if bears are attracted to tree products (as apples), it will be seasonally specific. Will that coincide with bear season?

In other words, if you can only hunt late fall to early winter, private land will not be your best choice unless it is contingent to Crown Land that may be semi-wilderness. I’ve hunted bear under all the above conditions, whether on Crown Land or private, and have enjoyed each for their own positive attributes as well as their individual challenges. If there were no challenges in bear hunting, I wouldn’t have done it! As my dad would say about the commercial fishing business: “Each day has its own challenges, and is different”. That could easily be said in reference to hunting bears.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

BULLETS — Heavy and Slow or Lite and Fast?

There are advocates for each end of the spectrum. Yet it’s true that the majority of hunting bullets are somewhere near the middle of that spectrum. However that may be, my blogs are focused mostly on Big Bores, and secondly the “Mediums”.  In over a decade of writing on themes related thereto, bullets have played the major role. Still, it is possible and practical to utilise a range of weights and styles where the current topic is fitting.

A suitable example might be what weight/design bullet should I use from my .458 Win Mag in an upcoming bear hunt? There are literally scores of potential choices from 250grs all the way to 585grs if cast bullets are included. That’s “lite and fast” to “heavy and slow”!

But then, as an example, it’s also possible to use one of the multiple 400s as a “one-bullet-does-it-all” sort of thing… which one? Then, if  using a 405gr Remington from 2000 fps to 2300 fps, would a 250gr AccuBond from my 9.3 x 62 at +2700 fps be a better idea? So it would be a comparatively heavy 405gr at up to 2300 fps (max because of construction, not ballistic potential) vs a relatively “lite” 250gr at +2700 fps. But let it be noted that +2700 fps for the 250 AccuBond is max whereas the 405 at 2300 fps is a reduced load. Felt recoil will be slightly less in the .458 WM at  about 38 ft-lbs due to its 10.75 lbs with 5 cartridges in a stock cartridge holder and the Mag-na-porting. The 9.3 x 62 will be three pounds lighter at 7.7 lbs with four cartridges, and felt recoil at 42 ft-lbs. (Of course, more is involved in “felt recoil” than ft-lbs numbers alone — but it suggests which might be more manageable. Though, from experience I already know the .458’s recoil will be somewhat “slower” and the 9.3 x 62 somewhat “faster”). Balance of the rifles would be a factor as well in matters of handling and comfort.

<Here’s a range of .458″ bullets from 600gr to 300gr

So this is something I’ve been “aiming” (pun intended) to do for some time — comparing proposed bear loads from my two big game rifles. Both loads are real and very accurate. I’ve already used the 250gr load on a black bear at 85 yards… it’s very accurate and lacks nothing. I’ve also used the 405 Rem on a black bear at 100 yards at an MV of 2110 fps. That was from a Marlin and was also very accurate. The bear hit by the 250gr (9.3) at 85 yards from an MV of +2700 fps ran 20-25 yards and died in stride without bawling. It left a trail of blood a blind man could follow. The 405gr from the Marlin was a “bang-flop”, the bullet was a pass-through from left flank (going-away shot) to just behind right shoulder. So neither bullet at their respective ranges and MVs lacked anything in accuracy or finished product — except the .458″ bullet was a DRT in result and the 9.3 was a dead bear at 20 – 25 yards.

So at issue is any advantage of “heavy and slow” vs “lite and fast”. That’s the question I’ll seek to answer in the analysis that follows.

A 550gr/.458″ Woodleigh bullet at 1364 fps/2272 ft-lbs has an MTE of 140 at the muzzle; same as a .340 WBY shooting a 250gr at 3000 fps/4995 ft-lbs at the muzzle. That’s a good example of heavy and slow vs lite and fast… but they have equal MTE starting out. How is that possible? Answer: the momentum is equal starting out and the .458-cal will make a bigger permanent cavity and has a greater SD for penetration. The .340 WBY will shoot flatter and maintain its velocity better downrange, true enough, but that’s max MV for the .340 and a very mild load for the 550gr/.458-cal. But there’s still plenty from the .458 load at 250 yards for a 2000 lb animal, with a much milder recoil factor – about 25 ft-lbs vs 54!

Did you notice? That’s less than half!

Therefore, if I went north again for a bull moose (not bear), which would I take, my Ruger “Tropical” in .458 Win Mag or the 9.3 x 62?

The question is “which WOULD I take”, not “which SHOULD I take”? Either will kill a bull moose at 500 yards.

Since I’ve already stated the case for the .458 in a recent blog using the 400gr Barnes X-Bullet at MV = 2590 fps/5957 ft-lbs, and MTE 120 at 500 yards, I know that the 9.3 x 62 firing a 286 NP at MV = 2631 fps/4395 ft-lbs and 1820 fps/2103 ft-lbs at 500 yds = 68 MTE, can’t keep up with the larger bore and heavier bullet.

So what are the advantages of one over the other, if any, since both rifles and loads are capable for a bull moose at 500 yards?

Recoil:

< 400gr Barnes X-Bullet @ 3.61″ COL

.458 load = 48.5 ft-lbs (including 15% reduction due to the Mag-na-porting)

 

 

 

 

 

<286gr seated to 3.37″ COL.

9.3 x 62 = 47.5 ft-lbs recoil

 

Rifle weights:

.458 #1 Ruger = 10.75 lbs (including 5 cartridges in a stock holder, + scope)

9.3 x 62 TIKKA = 7.7 lbs (including 4 in the clip magazine, + scope)

 

Rifle lengths:

#1 Ruger = 40″ (24″ barrel)

TIKKA T3 = 42.5″ (22.44″ barrel)

 

Ballistics: (as presented above)

#1 Ruger .458 = 5957 ft-lbs/MTE 267 @ muzzle, and 1735 fps/2673 ft-lbs/MTE 120 @ 500 yards

9.3 x 62 TIKKA = 4365 ft-lbs/MTE 140 @ muzzle, and 1810 fps/2080 ft-lbs/MTE 66.6 @ 500 yards

 

Analysis:

Recoil isn’t an issue of choosing one over the other.

Weight: The 9.3 x 62 TIKKA is the obvious choice being 3 lbs lighter IF walking miles in a hot sun would make a difference to someone already overweight and possibly having other health issues, such as a heart condition or poor feet!

However, as I’ve written in other blogs, 3 lbs extra weight on the shoulder or between the hands isn’t a serious consideration IF IN FIT PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION.

I include MENTAL conditioning because attitude is involved in toting a possible 20 – 25 lbs of weight added to our normal weight when we step on our bathroom scales. That extra weight that’s toted for 6 to 10 miles a day in rough, challenging terrain will surely test our mental as well as physical fitness before one hunting day is done!

However, in today’s world of hunting, nothing of that sort is allowed to transpire if under the control of outfitters and guides. The regime is a comfortable cabin, an ATV ride (or Ford, Chev, RAM or Toyota truck) to the hunting destination where we may sit for hours waiting for the game to come to us! So a rifle of three extra pounds need hardly be a consideration when leaving 20 extra pounds behind in the cabin, truck or ATV. But I’ve done the 6 – 10 miles per day thing in challenging terrain, toting about 15 to 20 lbs of extra hardware, clothing, drinks and food! So I learned how to carry not only a back pack, but my rifle. The rifle, whatever its heft, is shifted to multiple positions so its weight (8 lbs or 11) never becomes a burden to any particular part of the anatomy — hands, arms or shoulders. (Left click on pics for a better view.)

I used an 11.25 lb CZ550 in .458 Win Mag on a moose hunt to the far north of our province over a decade ago. And even then I was no “spring chicken” at age 73! And I never travelled on an ATV to get to hunting areas — I walked it up! Sometimes through thick alder patches, at others climbing “mountains”. And frankly, the only time I noticed the CZ550 was a bit too much was in the alders. And that was it’s length, not its heft. In the alder patches I’d have preferred something like a Marlin GG with an 18.5″ barrel in .45-70. (I nearly had my Marlin Classic shortened from a 22″ barrel to a 20″ when I did some trading and the Marlin was included. It was already at my gunsmith’s shop for a week or more and he hadn’t yet touched it. In my view, Marlin should have made at least one in a 20″ barrel version for the .45-70.) Apart from that, the CZ550 balanced well and was much more agreeable for offhand shooting than a ” Tikka T3 Lite” might be when the heart’s pounding and we’re struggling to fill our lungs with fresh air (Without a mask! I hate those things – you end up sucking in your own exhaust.)

The Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Win Mag has the heft for long, offhand shooting and the shortness for alder patches!

Ballistics again: Both have the potential for long range shooting of large soft-skinned game. But the .458 Winchester has this advantage — the 400gr at over 1700 fps at 500 yards WILL produce a larger hole and a more convincing permanent wound cavity, causing more immediate trauma and faster blood loss — which could result in a much quicker termination of the moose. Also, if the shot isn’t perfect in either case, the larger cavity might also involve large bones, that due to the heavier bullet could be perforated or broken more readily than less momentum and energy. So, I favor the .458 Win Mag in ballistics.

But the question is: Which would I take? Not should.

The Tikka in 9.3 x 62 has a clip magazine which I prefer over a bolt-action magazine repeater with no clip. That’s another issue that I’ll not go into any depth at the present time, but many woods hunters in our area prefer rifles with clips — just have an extra one loaded in your jacket pocket. And when the time comes to “unload” your rifle, and load it again, it’s much simpler and faster. All that to say that the advantage goes to the 9.3 x 62 for repeat shots, if necessary, over the single-shot Ruger #1.

Yet, with practice, one can be quite adept at loading a second or third shot from a single-shot rifle. I’ve written at least a couple of blogs on that point in the past. And, I’ve noted on videos that even “experts” can fumble second and third shots from a bolt-action repeater under pressure!

Regardless, mental attitude under stress is the issue whether using a single-shot or a so-called “repeater”. A “single-shot”, so-called, is potentially a “repeater” when several cartridges are handy to the action as in a stock holder. I’ve owned quite a few “single-shots” and never felt handicapped. They all went hunting. The only caveat would be in following up a wounded DG into thick brush.

Which would I take?  The .458 Win Mag in the Ruger No.1 Tropical with the described load would likely get the nod as I yet want to bloody it! But if travelling far from home the 9.3 x 62 would come along as a suitable backup “just in case”.

Another comparison of Heavy and Slow vs Lite and Fast might be a .44 Mag vs a .30-06. In the .44 , a Ruger 96/44 with an 18″ barrel, I’ve fired many 300s (Speers and Hornadys) at between 1600 to 1700 fps. In the .30-06 we’ll shoot a 180gr at 2700. As a start, I’ll make this assertion on behalf of writer/hunter Brian Pearce, who declared in an article published in a WOLFE periodical that a .44 Mag was as effective on elk at 150 yards as a .30-06, though he didn’t specify loads for each or elk sizes. So I’m about to test that based on MTE. The bullet for the .44 is one I’ve used in load development for my former Ruger (and shot a couple of crows with), and toted for bear defence while scouting along trails and bringing in bait for bear hunting at particular sites.

Rifle: Ruger 96/44 (rotary clip magazine) lever-action.

Cartridge: .44 Rem Mag

Bullet: 300gr Hornady XTP

Powder: H110

Primer: Winchester

BC = .245

SD = .232

MV = 1650 fps/1813 ft-lbs/ 61 MTE (I seated bullets longer than standard)

50  = 1524 fps/1546 ft-lbs/ 52 MTE

100 = 1407 fps/1319 ft-lbs/ 44 MTE

150 = 1303 fps/1130 ft-lbs/ 38 MTE (optimum game weight = 950 lbs – not many elk would surpass that weight.)

 

Rifle: Bolt action .30-06

Bullet: 180gr Hornady SP

BC = .427

SD = .271

MV = 2700 fps/2913 ft-lbs/ 58 MTE

50  = 2607 fps/2717 ft-lbs/ 54 MTE

100= 2517 fps/2531 ft-lbs/ 51 MTE

150= 2428 fps/2356 ft-lbs/ 47 MTE (optimum game weight = 1175 lbs – more than enough. But a mature bull elk at 800 lbs would be easy-peasy with either load. Brian Pearce was right!

150 yards may be an average distance for elk shooting. But averages assume both shorter and longer ranges than 150 yards That was a max load in my Ruger .44, and not necessarily a max .30-06 load that can shoot a 200gr Partition or Accubond at 2700 fps. So the .30-06 has distinct advantages over the .44 at longer ranges than 150 yards for elk, big bears or moose-size critters.

But up to 150 yards… it’s sort of a standoff for big elk!

The advantage of the .44 Rem Mag in my rifle over a .30-06 was obvious for the hunt ranges in my employ — less recoil, less weight, faster handling and shooting.

There’s an example of Heavy and Slow being better than Lite and Fast. That’s one I should still have in my locker. It was also more economical for much shooting.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

The .35 Whelen vs the .338 – 06

That these two have often been portrayed as combatants or at least as contenders for an uncertain crown, as to which is the best based on the parent .30-06 case, has been hammered more than a few times by authors and aficionados alike.

So, now it’s my turn.

I recall reading an article by Lane Simpson in the May-June 1986 RIFLE magazine, in which he referred to a piece by Ken Waters who posed one against the other and came to the conclusion that the .338-06 was somewhat better than the .35 Whelen. Simpson took exception to that. I happened to agree with Simpson then, and still do based on personal experience with the .35 Whelen and ballistic logic. And, I’ve used more bullets and powders than was available to Lane.

The logic is simple physics. As to my experience, the .35 Whelen under my ownership and control gave an easy 2600 fps from certain 250s. In fact, the Remington 7400 (semi) attained a high of 2645 fps from the 250gr Hornady SP over a dose of RL-15, ignited by WLRM primers. And, of course, the brass was Remington. That’s 3883 ft-lbs at the muzzle… for the curious. Today, there are verified reports (Speer and certain handloaders) of 250s flying out the muzzle of 24″ barrels at +2700 fps!! That’s .338 Win Mag territory — historically, at least. The .338 WM has also been upgraded by new powders and bullets. Incidentally, I also obtained like results from my last .350 Rem Mag, an M673.

But our topic is the .35 Whelen vs the .338-06, which was the darling of certain authors of a bygone era. “Silence” is perhaps the best descriptive term involving the .338-06 today. That hunting and shooting periodicals, and their writers, adopt certain “new” cartridges and the rifles for which they’re chambered is nothing new. The rage today is the 6.5 Creedmore. Ten years ago, or more, it was a resurgence of  interest in old Big Bores, including the introduction of a few new renditions such as the .375 and .416 Rugers. Prior to that it was the .458 Lott. Matters have gone in the opposite direction in recent times — “everyone” loves a small bore!

Still, there’s a significant group of real hunters that appreciate what has worked well in the past, and which have actually improved in efficiency with modern powders and bullets. The .35 Whelen is a great example of a cartridge proving its worth on big game since its introduction in the 1920’s by Col. Townsend Whelen and his associate James Howe. It did what was intended then and does the same just a bit better now. Success on Brown bear and giant Alaskan moose using common cup-and-core heavy bullets amply justified the faith of those who adopted it for the same work Whelen had in mind. Like its parent, the .30-06, it has stood the test of 95 years and counting. It isn’t going away any time soon as long as rifles can still be used in hunting — and hunting itself still exists.

<A .35 Whelen aficionado and his son on one of our moose hunting trips to Northern Ontario. http://www.35cal.com

What are its attributes that so aptly appeal to those who befriend it?

1. It just does a good finishing job on any animal — small to large — that it’s pointed at and the trigger squeezed.
2. Recoil isn’t significant enough to cause angst in the shooter.
3. Plenty of excellent bullets available to compliment the potential of the cartridge.
4. Its reputation is such that there’s no need to be embarrassed or fearful of success.
5. It doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to own or feed. Cast bullets are known to do their mission exceedingly well.
6. In a good rifle, accuracy is excellent.
7. Overall handling and weight isn’t a burden — no more than a .30-06 of similar length and weight.
8. The best weight bullets for big game are 225s and 250s. 225s at 2700 to 2800 fps and 250s at 2500 to 2700 fps. There are both lighter bullets and heavier – please check reloading manuals.

Nonetheless, as good as the .338-06 might have been in it’s hay day, we’ll take a frank peak at it’s current potential when psi is the same as the .35 Whelen in identical length barrels.

In the early ’90’s, when I was getting serious with the idea of a .35 Whelen, ballistic logic told me that all else equal (barrel length and psi) the .35 Whelen would have a better expansion ratio (ER) than the .338-06 simply because of a 12.6% larger cross-section area bore. Then, it was simply a matter of finding the best powder/bullet combinations to demonstrate that logic.

Actually, I’ve never owned or fired a .338-06 even though my astute gunsmith tried to convince me of its Stirling qualities for anything to be hunted! But I’m an avid researcher! And nothing, so far, in all my reading and research has improved or changed my ballistic logic!

The piece alluded to by Simpson went into bullets for each, which seemed to be the main argument of the .338-06 proponents — many more available in .338″ than .358″. Basically, he debunked that assumption in pointing out that there were enough very good bullets available in .358″ for any potential hunting needs. Since Simpson’s article, there are numerous high-tec. “premiums” available today in .358-caliber, all the way from pistol bullets to 310grs from Woodleigh! Just in checking Barnes, Hornady, Nosler, Speer and Sierra manuals, I count 2 TSX’s from Barnes, 6 Hornady, 3 Noslers, 3 Hot-Cors from Speer, 2 Sierras — a 200 RN and a 225 SBT. Woodleigh lists 11 bullets in .358, the most of any bullet company. Then there are a few others, plus the dozens of pistol bullets.

Surely from all that, any handloader’s dreams or desires could be satisfied.

In .338″ there are indeed more bullets, but how many does a hunter/shooter need to fulfil expectations. In my view and experience, few handloaders, if any, will be able to adequately test every available projectile for most common calibers, or even want to if being able to afford it!

But here are some expected, reasoned, results from a couple of 24″ rifles chambered in .338-06 and .35 Whelen  loaded to the same approximate PSI. As a wildcat. the .338-06, like so many other “cats”, was not limited by SAAMI, and early results were likely well beyond 52,000 cup. Since then, A-SQUARE legitimised the cartridge at SAAMI at about 65,000 psi, according to one source. Of course, that’s above and beyond that for the Whelen at 52,000 cup (about 62,000 psi).

The .338-06 A-SQUARE -data from the Nosler #6 Reloading Guide

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

Barrel length = 24″

SD = .313

BC = .473

MV= 2424 fps/3261 ft-lbs/92 MTE

100= 2250 fps/2809 ft-lbs/79 MTE

200= 2082 fps/2407 ft-lbs/68 MTE

300= 1923 fps/2052 ft-lbs/58 MTE

375= 1808 fps/1815 ft-lbs/51 MTE

*Now that’s slightly better than its parent case, the .30-06, but not by a whole lot, and only because of the larger bore and heavier bullet — which was intended by its creators. But in my thinking, it’s NOT deserving of all the HOOPLA created in the press when it was introduced! One of the authors shot a grizzly and it worked! Big deal… the .30-06 can do that! Oh… but it was shot with a 210gr Partition! That matters? Nosler’s manual #6 shows up to 2690 fps from a 24″ barrel for their 210gr Partition/3374 ft-lbs. For the 225gr in .358″, they show a high of 2805 fps/3930 ft-lbs in a 24″, .35 Whelen test barrel. I’ve shut matters down at 375 yards for the .338-06 because past that the 250 Nosler will not likely give any expansion.

Sorry, but the original larger bore works for me.

 

The .35 Whelen

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

Barrel length = 24″

SD = .279

BC = .446

MV= 2650 fps/3898 ft-lbs/110 MTE

100= 2456 fps/3347 ft-lbs/106 MTE

200= 2270 fps/2860 ft-lbs/ 81 MTE

300= 2092 fps/2429 ft-lbs/ 68 MTE/optimum game weight of 1700 lbs

400= 1923 fps/2052 ft-lbs/ 58 MTE/optimum game weight of 1450 lbs (Alaska-Yukon moose)

475= 1801 fps/1801 ft-lbs/ 51 MTE/ optimum game weight of 1275lbs

*NOTICE: The .35 Whelen has an MTE of 51 at 475 yards while the .338-06 is 100 yards shy of that! What the .338-06 will do at 375 yards the .35 Whelen will do at 475 yards!

My standard for “moose-size game” at impact is at least an MTE of 50/optimum game weight of 1250 lbs.

MTE = Mitchell Terminal Effect — how I judge ballistic effect at impact.

Yes, I know, bullet placement and all that…

Having revealed my thoughts on the .338-06 based on one ballistic profile that could well represent its average, and my experience with a .35 Whelen, I admit a preference for the .35 Whelen, but the .338-06 will surely get the job done within ranges where most soft-skinned medium and big game are actually taken.

Til next time…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Moose-size game cartridges compared – P3

The reason for this brief series on “moose-size game cartridges” is because the only game in my part of the world the size of moose — is MOOSE! And I’ve done more than a handful of hunts exclusively for that wild animal at long distances from home! So my concern over rifle cartridges for soft-skinned game animals that may go from 1000 lbs to 2000 lbs is founded on what? Experiences with whitetails that might go 250 lbs, or bear of 350 lbs? Hardly!

Two mature bull moose in my  bear hunting areas died in combat with their antlers interlocked. A hunter stumbled upon them while hunting. He reported it to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) who sent officers to check it out. Indeed, they found the situation as reported and had a heck of a time getting the bulls separated. A helicopter was brought in to transport the animals, one at a time, to one of their bases. En route, each was weighed by a device on the chopper. It turned out that the average weight was about 1400 lbs each!   Those were Canada Moose from Central Canada, not Alaska-Yukon moose!

So, if I were to hunt a boar grizzly in the Yukon, what cartridge rifle would you recommend for a large one at 1000 lbs, not knowing all possible conditions and circumstances before the fact?

That’s what we’re potentially addressing in this topic under consideration. It’s primarily addressed to DIY hunters, and secondarily to those who hire a guide — and for guides themselves!

BIG BORES are better than small bores, sub-mediums and mediums if the right loads are used accordingly, and the shooter is skilled in their use. “Skilled” as including the management of recoil to the extent that accurate shooting isn’t impaired.

A friend who writes for SPORTS AFIELD, Kelly Ross, totes a .458 Win Mag as backup for the big black bears of the West as an outfitter and guide! Where not permitted as a guide, as in Northern Manitoba, his defensive weapon was a 12-gauge loaded with Brennekes. He’s a man after my own heart!

In my analysis, BIG BORES start with the .40’s and go up from there. But we want, or need, one for more than arm’s length shooting… if being a guide/outfitter, or DIY hunter, of large and/or dangerous game that could attain a half-ton or more!

As it pertains to big bears, moose, elk or bison in North America, there are obviously several potential scenarios of involvement. In the Rocky Mountain States and Provinces/Territories, opportunities could range from a few yards to several hundred. The same is possible in the northern reaches of Canada, including our home Province of Ontario in the northwest, north and northeast. Though we don’t have grizzly/brown bear or bison, some game could still attain at least 1/2 ton at unknown ranges up to 500 yards, or even more. So what rifle cartridges from among the BIG BORES could be made sanely serviceable for big bears, moose, elk, bison, eland, Cape buffalo and Red Stag, keeping in mind that shots could range from 25 yards/meters to as far as you or I might need to shoot a wounded-escaping large, wild animal in the rear?

In recent years, Hornady has been the main enterprise for supporting Big Bore rifles and cartridges, through handloading components and even factory ammo., as well as in the resurrection of a few oldies such as the 450 Nitro Express 3 1/4″.

In addition to multiple TSX bullets being supplied for a plethora of .458-calibers, Barnes also makes available a few for the likes of the .404 Jeff, the .470 NE, the .505 Gibbs, the .500 NE 3″, .500 Jeffery and .577 NE 3″.That should be more than enough for our discussion on BIG BORES for soft-skinned game of 1/2 ton to more than a full ton of wild animal flesh and bone!

In fact, I get weary thinking about it! So, I’m gonna cut to the chase and eliminate most of them due to one cause or another.

I’ve already written a full series on all of them which are found in my archives: “The .458 Winchester Magnum compared to…” etc. But I’ll still mention a few possible candidates besides the favorite .458 Winchester Magnum.

The most likely caliber to compete well with .458″ is .416″.  Let’s start with a reasonable weight: .416 Remington Magnum firing a 350gr TSX.

BC = .345

SD = .289

Barrel = 24″

MV= 2627 fps (best from the BARNES #4)/5363 ft-lbs/211 MTE

100= 2379 fps/4396 ft-lbs/173 MTE

200= 2144 fps/3572 ft-lbs/140 MTE

300= 1923 fps/2875 ft-lbs/113 MTE

400= 1718 fps/2293 ft-lbs/ 90 MTE

450= 1622 fps/2043 ft-lbs/ 80 MTE

*I chose the 350gr TSX as it’s likely the one that would be used for a potential long-range shot if needed.

Then finally: The .458 Winchester Magnum. I choose the former 400gr X-Bullet since Barnes doesn’t make a 400 TSX, and for some unknown reason apparently does’t plan to. Because I still have enough of the 400gr X-Bullets to make a trek into the vast regions of Northern Ontario for a big bull moose, that 400gr would go with me.

BC = .457

SD = .272

MV= 2590 fps/5957 ft=lbs/267 MTE

100= 2403 fps/5127 ft-lbs/230 MTE

200= 2224 fps/4390 ft-lbs/197 MTE

300= 2052 fps/3739 ft-lbs/168 MTE

400= 1888 fps/3167 ft-lbs/142 MTE

500= 1734 fps/2669 ft-lbs/120 MTE

*That was an actual load from my current Ruger No.1 .458 Winchester Magnum with a 24″ Mag-na-ported barrel. And it would shoot flat enough to make any shot to 500 yards reasonable on a 1000 to 3000 lb critter.

When in my 60’s, recoil on the order of 48.5 ft-lbs with the Mag-na-ports would have been normal. Today, closing in on 85, I’d not have a problem if shooting from sticks or off-hand. From the bench, about six or seven is about all I want to deal with in one sit down.

There you have it. The only other true Big Bores listed in the common reloading manuals that can match or surpass that load for distance shooting is the .416 Weatherby and .460 Weatherby. But the cost in recoil, weight and $$$ might be too much for the average sportsman. The .416 Weatherby will shoot the 400gr TSX at 2600 fps from a 26″ barrel, but with a BC of only .392 within 50 yards it has fallen behind my 400gr X-Bullet load for the .458 Winchester Magnum with it 24″ barrel. From that point on it only gets worse! The Ruger #1 in .458 WIN shoots flatter and hits harder at all ranges! The .460 WBY can beat my Ruger shooting the 450gr at 2677 fps but the BC of that bullet is only .369 vs .457 for the 400-X, so again, the .458 load from my rifle shoots flatter with only 62% of the recoil found in the .460, and more than plenty for a 3000 lb animal at 500 yards!

All the others: the 404 Jeff, the .500s and the .577 NE fall behind past 300 yards. Apart from the “Jeff”, the others fail as a “serviceable” all-purpose, large-game-soft-skinned cartridge due to weight, limited range and recoil.

The 400gr X-Bullet was my favorite for the .458 Winchester Magnum. Sad, that it’s no longer available.

What about the .458 Lott, surely it’ll equal or better the ballistics of the .458 Winchester Magnum, will it not?

Not really — for evidence and reasons go to: http://www.accuratereloading.com Accurate Reloading Forums/BIG BORES/.458 Winchester Magnum. And the Lott has fallen somewhat out of favor in recent months as the .458 Winchester Magnum is experiencing a resurgence of interest and use.

And what about BP rifles? Sure, they would work very well on moose-size critters, but the range is limited unless you are a specialist in rainbow trajectories!

That’s it for “Moose-size game cartridges compared”.

See ya next time…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Moose-size game cartridges compared – P2

In my former blog (Moose-size game cartridges compared – P1, July 6/20) three common cartridges for moose-size game were discussed, being the 7 Rem Mag, the .30-06 and the .300 Win Mag.

As mentioned at the end of P1, the next three to be compared in ballistics would be (in this order) the .340 Weatherby Magnum, the .375 Ruger and the 9.3 x 62. These would normally be considered as “Mediums”.

The .340 Weatherby Magnum:

This was a favorite of two famous gun writers and hunters of different eras: Bob Hagel and Ross Seyfried, both of whom had more than enough experience in the development of handloads as well as using it in various game fields of the world to qualify as genuine experts — even if they might have been a bit prejudiced. To briefly sum it up, they both felt that it was one of the best cartridges for large soft-skinned game that might exceed a ton. Of course, distance is a factor to be taken into consideration, as well as other physical conditions. Bob Hagel suggested it was better than the .375 H&H for any North American game such as giant moose and brown bear, and Seyfried wrote that it was good for game to 3000 lbs at “long range”. No doubt, they both had an influence that led to my own acquisition of a Browning X-Bolt in .338 Win Mag that was converted to .340 Weatherby shortly after the purchase of the Browning. Indeed, that was the motive for acquiring the Browning.

However, before conversion to the .340, I put nearly 200 rounds of .338 Win Mag handloads through it to establish a base line. I was surprised by those initial results. I’d owned a couple of Browning A-Bolts stainless in LH previously, and they both had 26″ barrels that were fast! From the unmodified .338 Win Mag with it’s 26″ stainless tube and action, I was able to attain a high of 2842 fps (corrected to MV) from the Hornady 250gr SP, and very, very accurate to boot! All that from a “book load”. I began to have second thoughts about my project to have it re-chambered to .340 WBY. Nonetheless, I had a famed gunsmith from Peterborough do the work, and it included the long Weatherby “free-bore”.

In all, I put about 1000 rounds of handloads through that rifle over the next ten years, after which it was sold. But it did take the first year to learn its potential — what powder and primer in particular after trying all the so-called favorites. Also, I only fired a single shot from a factory 250gr that had been given to my son, Phil, by a friend who was an enthusiast of the .340. The Hornady bullet from the Weatherby case recorded about 2850 fps. By then I knew the .340 was capable of much more.

<The moose taken with my .340 WBY.

I won’t go into more details over the developmental process, but as stated it involved trial and error re: primers and powders. Cases were fire-formed, once-fired .375 H&H Remington brass given to me at our range by a non-handloader going to Africa on safari. The only Weatherby case ever used was that one mentioned – the one factory load. The Remington .375 H&H cases were superb, and I never lost one in fire-forming. Then, they were good for many, many “hot” loads” until the necks became work-hardened and manifest slight cracks. Of course, none of those were used in hunting. Once my hunting load was established, I used the once-fired, then fire-formed cases for my hunting load, which was:

The 250gr Nosler Partition at a ten year average of 2997 fps (I called it “3000” fps) and about 5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Average accuracy with that load over the decade was 1.25″ for three at 100 yds. Recoil in the 8.75 lb rifle was 54 ft-lbs. The powder was RL-22 and the primer was WLRM.

Here is the ballistic profile of that load that took an 1100 lb bull moose at 165 yds.

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

BC = .473

SD = .313

MV = 2997 fps/4986 ft-lbs/140 MTE

100 = 2799 fps/4349 ft-lbs/122 MTE

200 = 2608 fps/3775 ft-lbs/106 MTE

300 = 2424 fps/3261 ft-lbs/92 MTE/2300 lbs optimum game weight*

400 = 2248 fps/2805 ft-lbs/79 MTE/1975 lbs optimum game weight

500 = 2079 fps/2399 ft-lbs/67 MTE 1675 lbs optimum game weight

600 = 1917 fps/2040 ft-lbs/57 MTE 1425 lbs optimum game weight

*My numbers suggest a somewhat less optimum game weight than Ross Seyfried, but more than enough for the largest game in North America to at least 500 yards. But if a 3000 lb bison is the target (who has ever shot in our time a 3000 lb bison?) then don’t shoot past 100 yards! Then, the discussion becomes how many shots at 500, which is ridiculous since that would never be allowed under today’s highly regulated bison hunting. But for Alaska-Yukon moose by residents without an outfitter, 500 yards isn’t out of the question.

If sighted on at 300 yards, elevation at 100 is 3.6″ and -27″ at 500. Quite doable for a knowledgeable shooter.

Using the 250gr AccuBond (not available when I owned the .340) at the same MV would greatly improve on the above ballistics by about 100 yards!

It seems that hunters/shooters rarely consider the .340 anymore, in favor of other more recent innovations. Yet the .340 Weatherby hasn’t lost anything, but indeed has, itself, been improved by recent powders and bullets. The improvement from my Browning A-Bolt when a .338 Win Mag in factory form to a .340 Wby Magnum was 158 fps or 500 ft-lbs at the muzzle… Is that meaningful? That’s for each one to decide, but for myself I have no regrets for having improved ballistics by over 10%. For some, or several, reasons I never noticed the increase in recoil from 42 ft-lbs to 54 ft-lbs. It might matter today, but not then in my 60s. And it might matter to you…

The 250gr Partition wasn’t the only very good load in the .340. There were others that shot very well at around 2900 fps. Of course 225s, 210s and 200s would leave the muzzle much faster, but I saw no reason for them since this rifle was primarily intended as a moose “getter” at any potential range in the northern district of our province.  And a 250gr Partition was the “optimum” choice in the early 2000’s. As I said… today I’d likely choose the 250 AccuBond.

But, in my mind, the .340 was a special rifle reserved for larger game at longer distances. At that it shines, so it never went hunting for deer or bear. I had others for those purposes and was satisfied with 10 years ownership when the itch came for something different. It was actually sold, not traded. Many years later — in fact about one year ago I saw it for sale again at the same dealership where I purchased my 9.3 x 62 in 2011. But it wasn’t there for long — it was sold which gave me a further sense of satisfaction that “my” rifle was still finding fulfilment.

The .340 Weatherby — long may it live! Ideal for Alaska, the Yukon and Africa!

 

The .375 Ruger:

This one I’ve never owned, borrowed, loaded for or fired, but I’m told it was to mimic the ballistics of the hoary .375 H&H but in a shorter, lighter and handier package. Apparently, that was the scheme of Ruger and Hornady who teamed together in it’s production and marketing — Ruger the rifle and Hornady the cases and bullets, which later became factory ammo from the Hornady enterprise.

I have, however, done my homework on the cartridge and its ballistics. Ballistics claimed are by Hornady on their website and Handbook of Cartridge Reloading. The case OL = 2.580″ and COL = 3.250 to 3.290″ depending on bullets employed. The standard barrel length for claimed factory muzzle velocities is 23″. Yet there is an alternate barrel length of 20″ for guides, outfitters and citizens of Alaska to favor use on the big bears in close brushy conditions where maximum MV is less critical due to the relatively short distances required for shooting a bear or finishing off one.

Overall, it seems to me that while the .375 Ruger may equal, or sometimes better, the .375 H&H when factory ammo for the Ruger is used in a 23″, and factory ammo for the .375 H&H is fired from a 24″, yet matters may be significantly altered when EITHER factory OR handloads are put to use in the 20″ Ruger and good handloads are used in a 24″ H&H. There are several variables, of course, but I’ve yet to be persuaded that the Ruger has any ballistic advantage over the H&H when each is handloaded. In fact, handload ballistics from a 20″ Ruger will definitely be less than those fired from a standard 24″ H&H.

Nonetheless, we’ll give the .375 Ruger it’s best “shot” when used for “moose size game”. My Hornady, Nosler and Barnes manuals show loads for the two most popular bullet weights (there are others) of 270 grs and 300 grs.

Hornady tests are from the 20″ barrel and show a max for the 270gr at 2700 fps, and the 300s at 2550 fps.

Nosler used a 26″ test barrel (To my knowledge, Ruger has never made a 26″, .375 Ruger — it’s either 20″ or 23″. So their ballistics for the 260gr and 300gr are skewed in favor of a custom rifle, not a Ruger product.) So I’ll not give a profile of those results. If you have a 26″ custom .375 Ruger, use a ballistics program to calculate results to 500 yds.

Barnes#4 manual also used a non-standard barrel length of 24″, I think to make it comparable with the .375 H&H 24″ barrel. But still, that muddies the puddle because a Ruger rifle NIB will NOT have a 24″ tube, but a 20″ or 23″.

But I’ll use their ballistics and knock off 25 fps. Incidentally, even as a 24″, the ballistics are no better than the 24″ Wiseman test barrel of the H&H, and the barrel for the Ruger tests was also a Wiseman.

So, here we go: Since the game in question is 1000 lbs to 1500 lbs thin-skinned, the Barnes bullet that seems to be employed in both Alaska and Africa is the 270gr TSX.

BC = .326

SD = .274 (similar to a 180gr/.30-cal.)

MV = 2837 fps, -25 fps = 2812 fps/4740 ft-lbs/143 MTE

100 = 2539 fps, -25 fps = 2514 fps/3789 ft-lbs/114 MTE

200 = 2282 fps, -25 fps = 2257 fps/3054 ft-lbs/92 MTE

300 = 2040 fps, -25 fps = 2015 fps/2434 ft-lbs/73 MTE

400 = 1814 fps, -25 fps = 1789 fps/1919 ft-lbs/58 MTE

500 = 1607 fps, -25 fps = 1582 fps/1500 ft-lbs/45 MTE

There’s little doubt that such a common load for the .375 Ruger does NOT represent its best potential. But most shooters/hunters will be ignorant of that fact (or not care) as most of their shots will be far less than 400 yds, perhaps less than 300 yds. For those ranges: 300 to 400 yds it lacks not much, but evidently falls far behind the .340 load above, and, as we shall see, does so as well against my 9.3 x 62 load coming up.

But all that to prove one single point: the cartridge designation, or name, doesn’t insure it will be superior in actual use to those assumed to be inferior. In actual fact, if advanced handloads are involved in the latter, and inferior ones employed in the former, the roles could actually be reversed in application.

If I were to choose a .375 Ruger as an all-purpose rifle, where a moose-hunt might involve a shot at 400 to 500 yds (possible in the north of Ontario) or not at all on a DIY hunt, it would be one with a 23″ barrel loaded with the 260gr AB at full power — about 2850 fps/4690 ft-lbs at the muzzle and 2010 fps/2332 ft-lbs at 500 yds/68 MTE — 1700 lb optimum animal weight.

Recoil about 48 ft-lbs from an 8.75 lb rifle loaded for the hunt. The data used here is based on the Nosler Reloading Guide 6.

And for those who may want to know: The .375 H&H would give the exact same performance from a 23″ barrel and a custom rifle weighing 8.75 lbs ready.

Would I exchange my 9.3 x 62 for either of those two?

 

The 9.3 x 62 “Mauser”:

I used quotation marks for the 9.3 x 62 as often that’s how it’s designated by some authors because its originator, Otto Bock, a Berlin gunsmith in 1905 created it to be used in the famed 1898 Mauser.

The original ballistics are hard to come by as I’ve read several conflicting reports from those who claim to know. Whatever the case, more recent European loadings are also variable, so the North American load of a 286gr at 2400 fps seems close to a “normal” load based on CIP standards.

Yet, some reported loads are less and others greater.

Mine was purchased on May 31, 2011 after a futile search for another .35 Whelen to replace the one I’d sold. But I did spy a couple of 9.3 x 62s at one of the major enterprises I did business with. Being somewhat aware of its nominal ballistics, and something novel, it intrigued my interest so I travelled for an hour to that gun emporium for a look-see ( perhaps the largest in Canada). One of the 9.3 x 62s had already been sold, so one remained. It was a Tikka T3 Lite with a dark-blue finish on metal parts (except the bolt handle in stainless) and the stock in  black polycarbonate. Barrel was 22.44″. There was another rifle that intrigued me also: a .338 RUM in stainless metal and a grey-black laminated stock supporting a 26″ barrel, and I was aware of its potential ballistics. It was also slightly used. Both were handled side by side — the Tikka T3 and the Remington 700. It was no contest, the Tikka in 9.3 x 62 went home with me.

Why the 9.3 x 62 over the evidently faster and more powerful .338 RUM? Cost wasn’t a factor as the going price was similar for each. But the sticker on the Tikka had been lowered from $850 to $650, so that did help swing the balance in favor of the 9.3 x 62.

But there were six central reasons for choosing the 9.3 x 62: First: I went looking for another .35 Whelen. Second: I didn’t want another rifle with similar ballistics to the .340 WBY. Third: Cases for the .338 RUM were not readily available and they couldn’t be made from any other cartridge case, whereas in a pinch 9.3 x 62 brass could be formed from .35 Whelen or .30-06 cases. “In a pinch”, but not recommended as the case head of the 9.3 x 62 is significantly larger. Fourth: I considered the .35 Whelen a more “general-purpose” round in a 22″ barrel format than the 26″ barrelled .340 Weatherby, so the 9.3 x 62 was also viewed as appropriate for game hunting of any size and disposition — which had a long African history as verification. and…

Fifth: Perhaps most important of all, there is nothing in soft-skinned game that one could successfully hunt globally with a .338 RUM that could not effectively be taken at 500 yds/metres by premium loads in the 9.3 x 62. (Ya, I know yards and metres aren’t the same – 550 yds = about 500 metres.) And that’s well beyond 99% shooting of most game.

Sixth: Finally, all matters considered – availability and cost of handloading components, handiness of rifles and recoil will ALWAYS favor the 9.3 x 62 over a .338 RUM. PLUS, when the 9.3 x 62 is given its best handloads, the .375 Ruger’s potential distance from the 9.3 x 62 in effectiveness is reduced to zero!

Let’s see, based on the following evidence:

Bullet: 286gr Nosler Partition

BC = .482

SD = .305

MV= 2631 fps/4395 ft-lbs/141 MTE

100= 2452 fps/3817 ft-lbs/122 MTE

200= 2280 fps/3300 ft-lbs/106 MTE

300= 2114 fps/2839 ft-lbs/91 MTE (2275 lb optimum game weight)

400= 1956 fps/2430 ft-lbs/78 MTE (1950 lb optimum game weight)

500= 1806 fps/2070 ft-lbs/66 MTE (1650 lb optimum game weight)

 

The ambient conditions for all cartridges and loads are: 45*F/+7*C; 1150 ft elevation and 56% RH

None of the loads listed for the three cartridges would prove inadequate for the intended purpose. The .340 WBY and 9.3 x 62 are basic equals in MTE, and both are superior to the .375 Ruger load at distance. But as pointed out, in the use of a 23″ Ruger and max velocity of the 260 AB it’s pretty much a “wash”.

So which would I choose today? I’ve no reason to change the choice I’ve made. The recoil of the 9.3 x 62 load is about the same as the .375 Ruger load, but the Ruger is about one pound heavier. If my TIKKA were as heavy as the Ruger the recoil in ft-lbs would be about 43 ft-lbs instead of 47. The .340 Weatherby at 8.75 lbs had a recoil in KE of 54 ft-lbs as mentioned, but I never noticed it at the bench because I was shooting heavy loads from my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT that generated about 70 ft-lbs. It’s largely a matter of what we get used to.

Still, I wouldn’t recommend any of the loads above to a novice of heavy-magnum loads.

Next up: BIG BORES for moose-size game…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL