Killing Shots on Big Game – P1

In re-reading some very detailed quasi-scientific papers on this theme — reviewed by myself up to four times — I’ve come to several conclusions that I think can’t be stated as a single judgement, or final dictum. In other words, nothing in ballistic studies or wounding science should be stated in absolute terms — everything must be qualified.

One of the goals I pursue in my blogs is to be as knowledgeable, and yet practical, as possible in the presentation of physical facts and their application. And within reason, I seek to illustrate the principles by personal experience, or the experiences of others who have credibility in my eyes.

The issue of “killing shots”  therefore involves many details including: 1) the shooter; 2) the rifle; 3) aiming device; 4) accuracy; 5) the cartridge; 6) the bullet; 7) velocity at impact; 8) the animal; 9) it’s class; 10) its distance; 11) its angle; 12) it’s temperament; 13) elevation; 14) ambient conditions; and 15) physical conditions.

All of which are directly involved explicitly or implicitly.

So, do I really want to even attempt to deal with all that is implied or directly involved, when thousands of thesis have already been researched and developed by scientific minds? Or, on the other hand, by those with less theories but more practical experience.

Personally, I try to harmonize the two and have come up with my own theory, or two, and even three or more! And I make no claim to having resolved anything, other than as personal guidelines.

I have tested bullets in both game and media, and have no theory about either. I go by what “seems” suitable for the job, if I do my job in placing the bullet somewhere close to where I want it.

And some bullets from some cartridges, that others would deem unsuitable, have worked wonderfully. A 165gr Sierra BT hitting a big buck a bit far back did its task admirably. Why? Because range was only 65 yards and the hit was into the diaphram and guts of the buck that was turning away from me, and that bullet fully penetrated to the offside hind leg, hitting the hip joint, turned 90* downward and exited the knee joint in at least two pieces! The deer went down on that hip, got back up and hobbled 20 yards into the bush where I found him comatosed in a simulated going to sleep position. I walked up to within 8 feet and gave a finishing shot between the eyes from my .30-06.

Sierra said THEY were surprised by that performance since that bullet should have “blown up” in the guts! Then, how much do they know? The velocity was right, at about 2800 fps — impact velocity was around 2700 fps –, but the design/construction was suggested for big-game starting at 100 yards IF that bullet hit the “boiler room”! The left-side ham was wasted, by-the-way. And that wasn’t a puny whitetail from the south of the USA — it was a Canadian northern buck!

That’s to illustrate what I’ve stated at the outset — “I have tested bullets in both game and media, and have no theory about either. I go by what “seems” suitable for the job, if I do my job in placing the bullet somewhere close to where I want it.”

Not many of the pro authors praise Sierra bullets, but obviously they must work since Sierra is still in business, and there must be thousands who find them suitable. The reason I was using that bullet in that situation was due to the fact of being on private property that permitted a large variety of possibilities. I was seated on the side of an old logging road that extended 160 yards to my left and 400 yards to my right. And word from a frequent visitor to that land was the presence of a 400 lb buck who lived there too. (The following year I did get a chance on him).

The point? I used what “seemed” appropriate considering that Nosler Partitions (at that time) were twice as costly, and less aerodynamic for a potential shot at 400+ yards. The following year I did use a 165 Nosler BT on that monster buck at 150 yards and it broke up on the shoulder. That’s what I mean by “testing bullets on game”. The idea isn’t to purposely “test them on game”, but the result is useful as “a test”. We form convictions that way.

There have been many presentations of comparing bullets in tests. I’ve done some of that and find it useful as long as the physical conditions are the same for each bullet. For example, I found that a 350gr TSX/.458″ completely penetrated my test setup, and was stopped just inside the final panel of the last cardboard box, whereas a 500gr Speer GS SP was stopped after 6.5″ inside the first box. The 350 TSX retained 100% of its weight at full expansion while the 500gr Speer retained 62% at 310 grains. That’s not to condemn the Speer bullet, (The Speer on ^ far left and the 350 TSX on far right) but to realize that as far as weight retention and penetration is concerned, I might be better off with that Barnes 350 TSX than the 500gr Speer GS, depending, of course, on the game being hunted and the terrain.

Moreover, that was more or less confirmed by a shooter-hunter from Saskatchewan. A few years ago he went to Australia on a cull hunt of Water Buffalo. Using his .458 Win Mag loads of the 450gr Swift A-Frame, a 420gr CEB and the 350gr TSX, he said the 350gr TSX did about as well as the 450 AF at distance and better than the CEB. The MV of the 350 TSX was 2650 fps. In planning a return visit he thought he’d take more of the 350 TSXs than on the initial visit, and not take any CEBs.

That was an important test on big live game. I pay close attention to any reports of that nature. In making any judgement calls on “killing shots” the shooter’s ability is number one, the cartridge is number two, and the final crux of the matter is bullet construction. Why not bullet placement? That comes under the heading of the shooter’s ability, which is number one. If he has knowledge and experience, he’ll choose both cartridge and bullet. If he lacks some knowledge or experience, he’ll research it — or should.

Those associated with the design and manufacturing of the CEBs, apparently did so mostly on the basis of theory, and experience limited to close-range shooting. The Saskatchewan shooter said they worked fine for close shots — but no better than the others — but do to a very poor BC at longer ranges (200 yards) they were like “a hard thrown bag of leaves”.

So, killing shots are very much a significant result of bullet construction and shape (profile), which affects the shooter’s ability to place the bullet where intended as well as in terminal results. Especially is that so in a case of significant differences in both ranges and animal weights. There IS an important distinction in potential effect between hitting a 250 lb soft-skinned animal at 200 yards or meters, than a 1250 lb soft-skinned animal with the same load and bullet at 300 yards!  Happy is the hunter who is equipped and prepared  for either in the same hunt with the same rifle and ballistic profiles.

A killing shot is not usually by accident. It takes research, practice, planning and confidence. Confidence is largely the result of research, practice and planning. Yeah, I know there are some types who “know” they can pick up any rifle, load it up and go shoot themselves a “BARE!”

But what I’m referring to is a somewhat “normal” hunter.

RESEARCH: I’ve researched every rifle cartridge I’ve ever owned or used. In starting out, it was by reputation. Both the 7×57 Mauser and .30-06 Springfield had excellent reputations for anything I thought might be on my “bucket list” from fox to moose — and that impression was about spot on. The same impression has applied to other big-game rifles/cartridges. I began handloading with my first .30-06 that involved a lot of research. I loaded 165s, and 180s mostly as I didn’t envision much moose or any bear hunting. After that it was a 7 Remington Magnum which digested mostly 160s and 175s, followed closely by a .300 Win Mag and a .338 Win Mag. By then I was serious about bear and moose hunting so went heavier in the choice of projectiles.

That seemed quite “normal” to me. And in the development of loads and practice at the ranges, I developed confidence in my ability to produce very good loads for each rifle and in the shooting of them without fear of their recoil. I could squeeze the trigger on the most potent of them without batting an eye — up to and including a .340 Weatherby, .375 H&H and yes, even the formidable .45-70s and .458 Winchester Magnums. All that was a process, resulting in shooting thousands of rounds in practice before ever venturing afield for big game. How old was I? In my fifties and sixties. I could shoot the .340 Weatherby as well as a .223 Remington. When I shot my first bear I was 54, and that with my first .45-70 — a 400gr Speer at 1865 fps. My first moose (and only) was shot with the .340 Weatherby when I was 66. I never noticed the recoil. I had squeezed off three shots of a 250gr Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle at +/-3000 fps before the game was over. Recoil was on the order of 54 ft-lbs — it was never noticed. First shot at 165 yards and it missed aiming point by 1-inch. Second shot was from the same position as the moose had just started to turn away from me. It hit the short ribs and came to rest just behind the offside shoulder at 4″ from the first exit wound. The bull went down.

The point? Recoil never entered my mind. Neither did worry over point of aim or accuracy. That rifle was as natural to me in shooting as if it were a .22LR. Yes, absolutely, I believe in practice shooting hundreds of rounds BEFORE going hunting with said rifle and load. It did exactly what I expected. Very little offhand shooting had been done previously. Almost practically none. But I had carried the rifle into woods areas and simulated shooting with it, and had handled it constantly prior to the actual moose hunt. Nothing surprised me. It worked as planned, the result of practice and research — I had confidence it would work on any moose no matter the conditions to 500 yards. That’s confidence both in myself and the rifle/cartridge/bullet load.

Any reasonable killing shot can be made by a knowledgeable, practised, confident hunter who knows his rifle and load like he knows his favorite hammer.

More next time…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Offhand Shooting, or “snap shooting”

Whatever we want to call it — some say “freehand” — I think we understand the intent. Yet, let’s describe it and then ask the question: Is it ever a legitimate practice for big-game hunting? If so, why, when and how ?

It’s been quite a few years since our second son, Phil, and I used to visit a small but crowded gun shop on Eglington Avenue in Toronto. Yet we immensely enjoyed those “adventures”! And that was due to two circumstances that were inevitable: The Italian owner and the over-crowded conditions of “too much stuff”!

The owner was a very likeable, talkative, bald, fat, and funny story teller with himself as the main character in his folksy yarns. And the shop was full of stuff related to shooting and hunting, including very expensive shotguns that were sold mostly to his Italian friends, about whom he often complained. Just picture a somewhat heated “discussion” going on in a crowded Italian gun shop over the “right” price for an expensive shotgun… I think we get the picture! (I hope the Mafia isn’t reading this, they might still be looking for me after forty-five years have passed!)

All of the preceding is to set the stage for the owner describing his shooting (at?) a bull moose, far from home on a moose hunt “Up North” with his buddies. His description is as follows (but it’s impossible to include the emotion, expressions, eyes, hands and arm movements):

Bob: “Did you get a moose, Joe?”

Joe: ” I saw this big moose at a far, far away distance, and started shooting…

Bob: “What were you shooting?”

Joe: “My three-hundred magume”!

Bob: “Did you hit the moose?”

Joe: “Oh, I must have… that three-hundred magume can kill from far, far away, ya know!”

Bob: “Were you able to get closer to finish off the moose?”

Joe: “Aaaah…, Noooo… it disappeared into the thick woods…”

Bob: “Did you have a rest for your rifle, or did you just fire away from a standing-up position?”

Joe: “With that rifle you don’t need a rest… Why would you do that? It can kill no matter how far away you’re from the moose.”

End of discussion. Phil and I left the shop shortly thereafter and had a good laugh. We weren’t disappointed with our afternoon’s entertainment!  And “Joe” continued to do his annual moose hunt in the “Up North” with his buddies.

That story is a fair representation, though quotes may not be exact of what transpired and was exchanged that late fall afternoon, though “Joe’s” name is not his real name to protect the guilty.

Yet, as far fetched as this true-to-life episode may seem to be, there are more than a few annual hunters who are guilty of such practices. When I asked “Joe” an estimate of how far away he thought the moose was from him when he commenced firing, he thought it was “more than three-hundred yards and maybe even six-hundred”! I think it should go without saying that no hunter should be simply flinging lead into the air at a live, un-wounded animal when he has NO IDEA of what he’s doing — neither where his rifle is sighted, nor the vaguest idea of the approximate range to the animal!

While I’m certain that the readership of this piece is in full agreement with me, that we should always be aware of the circumstances surrounding us when we squeeze the trigger, as well as control of the rifle knowing full well its capabilities and sight-in — as well as its limitations. Yet there are occasions when the flash of fur demands instant reflexes to take over, such as in (a) a snap shot, or (b) offhand shooting. Those, of course, are distinct entities.

A snap-shot is an instantaneous – reflexive action, whereas an offhand shot might be more deliberate. But in either case a rest or exterior support is missing. So, let’s have a look at each of these, including various circumstances, positions and equipment. Then, finally, asking the question: Are such types of shooting at real, live game ever legitimate?

In “Joe’s” case, since he’d been looking for a moose to shoot for a few unsuccessful days, and he rightly thought that IF that bull was “about” 300 yards from him, the .300 Winchester Magnum he was using for this hunt would be capable in it’s own right IF he could hit the moose in the “boiler room” at the imagined range. He obviously didn’t have a range finder in his shop, and it’s doubtful that any were available forty years ago anyway. But, the question remains: Even IF he was able to judge the distance to the moose within ten yards and knew the sight-in of his rifle, should he have taken an offhand shot at +/- 300 yards?

OFFHAND SHOOTING: In all such cases, I’m thinking rifles or shotguns using slugs. I have no experience in hunting animals with a handgun.

There’s no doubt that offhand shooting is a permitted practice in Africa on both PG and DG under certain conditions, both by residents, PHs and their clients. But it is discouraged, and “sticks” are used as support whenever and wherever possible. If not “sticks”, then bipods, tripods, a tree or a branch, or even a termite mound. But there are times when some shooters are fully capable of shouldering their rifle, aiming carefully, taking off the safety, squeezing the trigger and making a good hit through chest or shoulders of the animal — without the use of an exterior support. But some are much better at it than others.

When I first started to hunt whitetails on my own with a bolt-action 12-gauge with slugs, my first attempt was to “fling” a 12-gauge slug across an open  field at a very healthy, fleeing buck. The range was probably 200 + yards, and the slug likely missed by more than 20 feet! I was not a novice with that gun. I’d cleanly taken a good number of grouse with it from almost any angle on the ground, in bushes or in flight. But those were not with slugs nor beyond 25 yards. My shot at that fleeing buck was reflexive, knowing full well that a hit in a vital spot would be by chance alone. Lesson learned.

My next encounter with a whitetail using the same equipment, was in a tightly wooded area where I was able to put the sneak on a fat doe that was busy scratching for nuts in a hardwood bush. I got to within about twenty yards, took aim at her broadside chest, off went the safety and “KABOOM”! The doe dropped in her tracks. I was sure she was finished. But as I approached within about fifteen feet, she jumped up and fled into a thick tangle of bush before I could reload! Mistake number two! No hair, no blood, no trace and no snow — and alone! I later took that shotgun to a sandpit and fired off a couple of the same ammo, that had somehow missed the doe, at an improvised target. No sign of a hit within five yards of the aiming point on the target!

That was in 1959. I was a young pastor somewhere in central New Brunswick, with a wife and seventh-month old son. We were living on $50 – $55 per week, running an old chev that still cost $20 per week for gas (don’t remember exactly the cost of gas back then but it was around 30 cents per Imperial gallon, plus other costs for running an old car through nearly six months of bitter cold and blizzard conditions) and $12 – $15 weekly for food, so that didn’t leave much for other pleasures or hunting. But I did manage to buy that shotgun, new, in Fredericton, for $35. A deer tag was $2 and a box of shells (20) for around $5. I still have a very old box of No.5, 1 1/8oz  Supreme 12 gauge Shotshells, still with eight of twenty in it. They were bought at Canadian Tire, I assume in Fredericton (Provincial Capital of New Brunswick) for $5.69. Twenty for $5.69, and I doubt there was any tax. That’s 28 cents per shot. And gas at 30 cents costing $20 per week meant at least 67 gallons. 67 x 15 (mpg)=1005 miles per week! Yes! I was pastor of three full-time churches, and a fourth part-time, that covered 1200 sq-miles (3200 sq-km)! And I travelled that at least twice weekly! By the end of the first winter I had to replace that ’49 chevy with a ’52 chevy!

All that to explain why my only firearm for big game and birds was a 12-gauge, and it was no good for BG because it had a full-choke built in! It was a good bird gun but no good for deer, even from fifteen feet! And 000 Buck wasn’t allowed in those days.

I did also own a single-shot .22LR from my late teen years. And the churches did provide a house with a wood furnace and electricity without cost to us. The “bathroom” was at the end of the woodshed.

It was several years later before I owned a big-game rifle that opened the door for handloading. First a 7 x 57 military Mauser still in its grease, followed by a Mauser’98 rebarreled to .30-06. I started reloads for that .30-06. After a year or so that was traded for a “real” .30-06 in an M70 Winchester.

My first whitetail buck with that rifle was from an offhand shot at sixty-five yards. It was a handloaded 165gr Sierra BT leaving the muzzle at around 2800 fps. I didn’t have a chronograph in those days, so I went by “the book”. It was a nice fat nine-pointer, and I did give it a finisher from about five yards between the eyes from an offhand stance.

So offhand shooting is common in my view and experience. Results, however, will often be mixed depending on the shooter, the physical conditions and the equipment.

I asked a friend, Bob Fritz, to share some insights and experience on offhand shooting of live game. Bob is an expert shooter of rifles and shotguns. In the past he was a champion shooter in High Power target shooting from offhand. Also, he has done quite a bit of hunting of big game in the USA and Alaska. Then, he has also made a few trips to Africa for both PG and DG, taking a fair share of each, including elephant, Cape buffalo, lion, hippo and crocodile. He has used .30-06’s, a .300 Weatherby, .375 H&H and a .458 Winchester Magnum. Some of it has involved shooting from “sticks” (bipods and tripods — though he prefers bipods), and quite a bit of offhand shooting. Today he shoots a lot in the shotgun sports.

<(This is Frank, another friend, not Bob)

His counsel for shooting game (large or small) is always to use a rest — if possible. And always a scope on the rifle in offhand shooting, for the following reasons: 1) The target animal is brighter and sharper. 2) You have a wider field of view that is in the same plane as the reticle. 3) It’s faster to get on target than using irons (particularly in snap-shooting). But use the lowest suitable power — say 4x on a 3 – 9 x 40mm scope. 4) Use a stance or position that is most stable (less wobble or body movement) for the circumstance. Raise right elbow (if a right-handed shooter; opposite for a left-handed shooter) so it’s parallel to the ground. Keep left arm straight with the hand that grips the forearm. But most of the rifle weight should be borne by the right hand that pulls the rifle into the right shoulder. 5) Don’t lower the rifle from the shoulder for extracting the spent cartridge or reloading (in the case of a bolt-action repeater). 6) Don’t grip the bolt handle for this but rotate the rifle slightly clockwise while catching the bolt with the upper fingers (or palm, I would add) of your right hand that moves swiftly up and back and then forward and down for a repeat fire if necessary while keeping your eyes fixed on the target.

Most of the above paragraph is from Bob. But I have put some of his advice into my own words. Of course, there are some caveats, depending on the rifle/caliber/cartridge employed. Bob believes very much in a “cheek weld”. I don’t in some cases where my teeth might get mashed by a heavy recoiling rifle and cartridge such as a max loaded .458 Win Mag shooting 500s at 2200 – 2300 fps. And for such a cartridge, I prefer a low fixed- power scope with a long eye-relief of about 5-inches.

Yet to be fair, the point Bob makes about this is that pressing the cheek against the stock in looking through a scope becomes an extra brace in steadying the rifle along with the hands and shoulder. For that I tend to use the sling over my right elbow (left elbow for RH shooters) as a “hasty sling”, pulled tight. Of course in “snap-shooting” there’s really no time for that. He want’s scopes as low as possible while I tend to want them a bit higher. Some of that, of course, is differences in physique.

But the proof of the pudding is, as they say, “in the eating”.

I would rate Bob as a professional-quality shooter. He’s at the top of that game. He has also studied and has had training in the sport of shooting. But, he is his own man with a practical, analytical mind, and all that shows in his accomplishments both in competition and in the hunting fields. In off-hand shooting of game, the following is representative of his straight-forward answers:

>”If at all possible avoid all off-hand shooting”

>” If I recall correctly, I’ve killed one whitetail deer, two caribou, one  cape buffalo, one hippo, and some other stuff offhand. I’ve also missed some offhand shots.”

>”Pronghorn antelope running directly away. I shot over its butt and broke its neck. Guide said it was a 600 yard shot. I thought it was 300 yards”

>”Bull elephant (second and third shots offhand. The first shot was from sticks)”

I’m about a decade older than Bob, but have no experience as a competitive target shooter, and no experience hunting Africa’s DG.

Bob and I began correspondence about a decade ago when he wanted a copy of my reloading manual on the .458 Win Mag. Since then we’ve chatted in a friendly manner about diverse and sundry matters, but most often about guns, shooting and hunting. I always appreciate his thoughts and experience on these themes as well as politics, economics, religion, etc. — you know, the usual stuff most men discuss.

Thanks again Bob for your input.

My own experience in offhand/snap-shooting is limited but goes something like this:

>a good nine-point buck at 65 yards.

>a 1000 lb moose at 165 yards

>an eight-point buck at 35 yards

>a big jack rabbit at 35 yards

>a big black bear at 85 yards

>some big and small trees, deadfalls, stumps, targets, etc. And I too have missed some shots, mostly at moving game.

Generally, I find that holding an unsupported rifle steady on point of aim for more than about 4 seconds is just about impossible for me. By “steady” I mean on a particular spot on the animal or object. And the longer I hold, the worse it gets. A number of years ago, I was in a treestand hunting a particular black bear. Late in the day he came in behind me. I turned, looked around the 15″ thick tree and saw him coming sneakily downhill in my direction. He saw me when my head showed up peaking in his direction. He took off and hid in some thick brush. Then later reappeared behind a big tree to my right at about 30 yards. The problem was that the hardwood tree trunk was hiding his mid section. I had my rifle up, leaning to my right(I shoot from my left side) with the scope on him for what seemed like an eternity waiting for him to move a few inches for a clean shot to his lungs, but that never happened. My arms began to get tired and the end of the barrel was doing little circles. I had to give them a break and lowered the rifle into my lap — the bear took off on cue! I never saw him again. But it would have been an offhand shot on a trophy bear had he given me the chance. I had no rest on that ladder stand, and leaning as far to the right as possible wouldn’t have worked even if I had one.

What I’ve found in snap shooting, or even offhand, is that if I let the rifle’s sights (scope reticle) move in a parallel plane toward the spot I want to hit, and squeeze the trigger just before that spot is crossed by the intersection of the center of the reticle, I can hit the “target” just about dead center. I did that with the moose at 165 yards and a bear at 85. Both hits were within an inch of where I wanted the bullet to hit. And each shot was from a standing offhand stance.

Is such shooting of game ever warranted? Without flinging multiple shots into the air hoping to hit something… most definitely, yes, if there’s NO OTHER OPTION! Bob Fritz’s and my experience are positive. And I’m certain that there are myriad witnesses who could testify to similar results, but that is no guarantee for all hunters who frequent hunting fields or woods. Each one must be responsible for their own actions, and hold themselves accountable for knowing their limitations, and any constraints imposed by both gun and game.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

A Bullet’s Killing Power — P3

In our previous articles we’ve discussed a bullet’s CONSTRUCTION in P1,  then CALIBER and SHAPE in P2.  A bullet’s WEIGHT was also mentioned in reference to caliber but not dealt with in a specific manner. So today we’ll be considering the final two elements that determine a Bullet’s Killing Power in P3: WEIGHT and IMPACT VELOCITY.

Weight: A bullet’s weight is constrained to a great extent by its caliber. There are rifles whose caliber permits wide variances in this regard. For some examples: 7mm, .308, .338 and .458 are perhaps the most common calibers with a seemingly endless array of projectiles in construction, shape and weight; and I have considerable experience with all  four in multiple handloads for various purposes, including hunting, testing and target shooting. The question being: what is best for effectively killing/stopping a big-game animal under the expected hunting conditions?

For the past thirty years or so (1/2 of my hunting career) I’ve used “Mediums” and “Big Bores” for about 90% of my medium and big game hunting. So it would seem suitable to make use of medium-caliber and large-caliber rifles for those chores.

In medium-caliber rifles I’ve fired I don’t know exactly how many in .338″ — but surely into the thousands, including 200s, 210s, 225s, 250s and 275s. They were shot in .338 Winchester Magnums and a .340 Weatherby Magnum. I settled on 250s for hunting big game because they were constructed for that purpose, and sectional density was excellent at .313, and ballistic coefficient was also excellent at between 473 BC for the Nosler Partition and 587 BC for the Sierra (see P2). That meant excellent potential down-range performance. In addition, those bullets could be driven at +/- 2700 fps from the .338 Win Mag with only a 20″ barrel to 2840 fps from my 26″. From the 26″ .340 Weatherby an average of +/- 3000 fps was usual from the 250gr NP. Both the .338s and .340 were very efficient in the use of powder, and accuracy was more than acceptable. I thought recoil from the .340 might become a concern at 54 ft-lbs, but it never was. I shot a bull moose with that load from the .340, and the bull,1000 – 1100 lbs, (but estimated by the manager of a meat packing plant in Toronto, that deals mainly in beef, at 1300 lbs from the amount of boned-out meat from the moose. BTW, I didn’t agree with that estimate.) took a total of one step before it went down on the second shot.  It got to its feet again when my son arrived and spooked it, but it couldn’t have made one more step without falling. In any case I gave it another in its rump and it went down to stay.

In my opinion (and I dislike most opinions), a well-constructed 250gr in .338″ is the ideal weight for large and potentially dangerous game.

Similarly, in .358″ caliber, I’ve handloaded 200gr Hornady SP and 250gr Hornady SP, 200gr Barnes X (original), 225gr – X, 300gr Barnes RN, 250gr Nosler Partition and 250gr Speer GS and SP. These involved two .350 Rem Mags and a .35 Whelen. I did also own a single-shot  .35 Whelen that was not kept for a couple of reasons that I’ll not go into here, so I’m not including it in this summary. Hundreds of handloads were fired through the Whelen and hundreds more through the two .350 Rem Mags. 2600 fps was easy for the Whelen from both the Hornady 250 and Speer 250 SP, but not from the 250 Nosler. My last 350 Rem Mag had a serious chamber problem from the Remington factory — it was roughed-out only and never finished. It went to my world-class gun smith, Edwin von Atzigen (now retired), and he corrected the problem. After that it had better ballistics than the Whelen from its 22″ tube (The Whelen also was 22″). And it had better accuracy at three in 3/8″ at 100 yards from the 250gr Speer GS leaving the muzzle at 2700+ fps! Remington brass was used in each (the .350 Rem and Whelen), WLRM primers and RL-15. (Left click on pics for a better view)

The .350 Rem would have been kept except it was way too heavy and had the cosmetic rib on the barrel made of steel. It served no purpose other than some nostalgic person at Remington “felt” it would bring back some nostalgic customers… Duh! Anyway, Remington later ditched it and came out with the CDL version with a 22″ barrel and walnut stock. But this isn’t about the weight of the rifle — but of the bullets.

Again, while there is a use for 200gr and 225gr projectiles in .35 caliber, and even a 310gr and 280gr, I believe that if someone wants to use their 350 Rem or .35 Whelen for a mixed bag of deer and moose (elk?), they’re better off with a quality 250gr. A 250gr will have a better SD at .279, and generally a better BC for superior down-range results on larger game, including African PG.

Next up is the 9.3 x 62 (the 9.3 x 74R is similar but really a different entity as it’s reserved for single-shots or doubles): I’ve written a lot on this one over the last eight years so will try to avoid too much repetition. But it’s about 9.3 bullets, and their weights which are not as prolific as in the American calibers or the .375s. The reason for this situation is quite simple to understand — it’s not an American caliber or cartridge, and has only come to the fore in North American hunters thinking over the last decade or so. And, there is resistance to anything metric. Nonetheless, it has become a favorite of many including myself.

I may not yet be aware of all bullets available since many are made in Europe, but there are more than enough quality ones produced in America (and some in Canada) for most chores for which this world-famous cartridge is renowned. I’m aware of one that’s produced in Australia, I believe, by GS Custom that weighs a mere 195gr with a boat-tail. But they are very difficult to locate anywhere in Canada. They also have a decent SD and BC for medium game, but even with an MV of 3000 fps from my rifle it would still come short of the excellent 250gr Nosler AccuBond in effect on large or medium game at longish distances. The 250 AccuBond has persuasively been used on PG African fauna as well as the likes of grizzly on our side of the ocean.

It’s accuracy at 2760 fps from my rifle shoots into MOA and one grain less at +/-2700 fps shoots consistently into less than 1/2″ when I’m on my game. It’s also a capable bear “getter” at extreme range — for those capable of taking a 350 lb whitetail at 400 yards — and where permitted or appropriate — i.e. without an outfitter.

Let’s see… At 400 yards that bullet leaving MY rifle at 2700 fps hits at 2047 fps/2325 ft-lbs. Based on my Terminal Effect formula, with a good hit through lungs with an exit, the TE should be 65 — plenty for any 800 lb bear!

Am I recommending that? No! But that’s to illustrate a point depending on the ability of that bullet at that impact velocity! That’s a premium 250gr, .366-cal bonded-core bullet hitting a vital area with over 2300 ft-lbs. It’s BC = 493 and SD @ .267. If you were standing a mere ten yards from that 800 lb moose or bear, and shot it through the heart/lung area with that bullet so it impacted with 2325 ft-lbs of kinetic energy remaining at 2047 fps, what do you think would be the result? What other cartridge could we compare it with: a 250gr at 2047 fps impact from ten yards? Would you feel safe with a big-bore handgun in the .454 Casull shooting a 250gr? According to Nosler, their 260gr can make up to 1983 fps/2270 ft-lbs starting out from a single-shot TC Encore, and with a BC of only .174 it’s making 1941fps/2174 fp-lbs at impact! With an SD of .182 that’s a TE of 56.5, good for a big bear but still behind the 250 Accubond/.366″ (9.3mm) from 400 yards distant! So bullet weight and construction are meaningful, but it’s effect is determined by IMPACT velocity which is determined by shape and muzzle velocity. And the 286gr NP is even better for larger game. Leaving the 22.5″ barrel of my Tikka at over 2600 fps it’s still making over 2000 ft-lbs at 500 yards! (A recently fired 286gr NP from my 9.3 x 62 recorded this)>

And I’ve fired hundreds more from .375 H&Hs, as well as thousands in .458-caliber from ten .45-70s and three .458 Winchester Magnums.

IMPACT VELOCITY

Depending on several other important factors, impact velocity will determine if a particular bullet gets the job done as intended for it.

What are those other important factors?

1> Bullet design and construction.

2> Bullet placement. (Upcoming topic: Offhand shooting of big game)

3> Bullet energy and/or momentum.

4> Bullet caliber.

In essence, that is a summary of what previously has been presented, with the exception of placement and impact velocity.

<(A 500gr Hornady RNSP recorded this in May, 2019. Temp. @ +13C/+59*F. Chrony at 15 ft from muzzle) In terms of velocity, it should be obvious, I think, that a 500gr/.458″ needs far less velocity at the muzzle than say a .338 Lapua shooting a 250gr for equal kinetic energy. And the .338 Lapua is incapable of equal momentum, or the same permanent wound cavity volume even if each start out with 5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. It’s forté is as a long-range sniper rifle, or harvesting big game at long range, much like the .340 Weatherby I owned for ten years. The .458″/500gr has a different purpose — the taking of large DG at relatively close range, or large thin-skinned non-dangerous game at longer ranges, but the right bullet must be chosen for each. A 500gr/.458″ for elephant should be a solid that will not deform, rivet, bend, veer off course or malfunction in any manner. But a 450 – 500gr soft-point expanding must start expanding at impact and perform much the same as a quality solid thereafter — that is holding onto most of its unfired weight while still penetrating in a straight line. Those would be the ideals for a large bore bullet. For a lesser caliber in the medium range, the goals are much the same as for a large-bore SP bullet: adequate penetration with the bullet retaining 75% to 95% initial weight.

There are premium bullets out there for medium and large bores equal to those tasks.

Yet there remains several important factors to be kept in mind:

>knowing the SD and BC of any bullet that will be used to harvest game.

>knowing the necessary MV that will assure adequate expansion within the parameters designated for that bullet —  example, for most of Nosler’s soft-points that would be a minimum of 1800 fps. Woodleighs have a range for each of their calibers and types; example: a minimum of 1900 fps for their PPs (Protected Points).

Of course, a lot of that depends on bullet construction, shape and bullet placement on the animal. Hitting heavy bone will give a distinctly different result than soft tissue only.

For big bores a relatively flat meplat will expand more readily than a pointed bullet if both have hollow points or soft lead tips. On the other hand, a very effective bullet in large bores is a flat tip of hard lead or full metal jacket. They will penetrate “forever” and yet cause immense destruction along their path to a likely exit. That’s why large-bore BP cartridges are such effective killers of large game despite relatively low MVs and impact velocities around 1100 – 1200 fps. Consider the ancient .45-70 of the 19th century shooting 500gr cast bullets at merely 1200 fps. Even considering their rainbow trajectory, they were very effective killers of the enemy beyond a mile! And consider that even today an 1895 lever-action Marlin can launch a 465gr semi-hardcast at over 1900 fps into MOA using a smokeless propellant! I’ve done it many times, and let me tell you that the impact on a 6-foot black bear at 70 yards was such that he dropped so fast in tall grass that I lost temporary sight of him… he went not 2 inches from where he was shot frontally. That bullet was never found!

So bullet construction, caliber, weight, shape and impact velocity should ALL be taken into account before leaving home for the hunting fields.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

 

A Bullet’s Killing Power — P2

We often hear of a rifle’s killing power, or a “stopping rifle”. While we understand the intent of such expressions, we know that a rifle does none of those things. Of course, it’s the bullet that kills, wounds, stops or even misses the game animal. The rifle is built to fire the bullet that is intended to kill or stop said creature. Depending on the expected target, we choose a rifle that will fire a suitable projectile. If it’s a big, tough and potentially dangerous beast, we want a rifle commensurate for the job, and that means rifles chambered for cartridges capable of handling bullets of appropriate construction, caliber and shape. (Left click on photos for a better view.)

We’ve already had a couple thousand words regarding construction — no doubt a million words wouldn’t suffice for some folk. For others, a couple hundred might be too much. The point being that bullet construction will continue to be debated into the foreseeable future, as it has in the past, as to what is best for a particular hunting task. But, in my way of thinking, we have the best choices today than we’ve ever had in bygone days.

Next:

CALIBER

That’s the size of the hole in your barrel, sometimes designated by hundreds of an inch, or thousands, or even fractions. That originated with the British, then was adopted by those of the British colonies, and the Americans. Others of European influence use the metric system — i.e. millimetres or mm. The larger the hole in your barrel means the bullet will be larger and usually heavier. That in turn should mean a larger permanent wound channel, all other things equal.

The weight of the bullet in relation to its caliber determines its sectional density, and has a specific influence on its ballistic coefficient and penetration. Caliber is measured in the grooves at 180 degrees from facing grooves. Hence, a .308″ caliber shoots a bullet of .308-inch diameter so that the lands of the rifling will cut into the surface of the bullet for stability as it rotates down the bore, spinning like a top — the purpose of the rifling twist-rate. Of course, we already know all that, right? But the rate of twist is very important in using heavy-for-caliber projectiles that may tend to be overly long in today’s world of monolithic bullets. Ergo: the twist rate must be capable of stabilizing a long – heavy bullet. That may mean a faster rate than normally found in a factory rifle.

And, to emphasize, once again, this site is primarily about Big Bores that fire big bullets!

Big Bores, in general today, are considered to be .40-caliber plus. So in the consideration of suitable bullets for big, large and dangerous game, we are thinking heavy, wide and well constructed bullets.

As per our last blog (P1) on this theme: construction should not be taken for granted, but suited to the task! After that comes bullet weight.

In deciding on caliber we need first to know what cartridges are available in that caliber. A .35 Remington is in no way comparable in ballistics to a .358 Norma Magnum, for example. The .35 Remington holds a maximum of about 42 grains of a medium powder under a 200 grain, and grants an MV of around 2100 fps/1958 ft-lbs, whereas the .358 Norma Magnum will use about 75 grains of a slower powder to propel the same bullet at 2900 fps/3734 ft-lbs; almost twice the powder consumed for nearly twice the energy!

So it’s obvious that we should be considering the cartridge as well as the caliber, if we’re thinking big dangerous stuff! In some cases in Africa, for instance, a .375-cal is minimum for DG. But also joules are a consideration. A .375 Winchester producing about 2000 ft-lbs at the muzzle = 2830 joules (500 joules = 386.78 ft-lbs). Most big and dangerous game in Africa require over 4000 joules to qualify. So a .375 Winchester is not the same thing as a .375 H&H that easily makes 6000 joules. The 9.3 x 62 and 9.3 x 74R are legal in many African countries for large and dangerous game. My 9.3 x 62 can make up to 5960 joules. So the cartridge is at least as important as the caliber, and in some cases (pun unavoidable) more so.

The important thing is that there are plenty of excellent component bullets for the handloader that are available from several sources to fulfil both requirements and expectations in hunting large and dangerous game while using medium and large bores.

SHAPE (profile)

While a bullet’s weight and caliber determines its sectional density (SD), it’s construction, weight, caliber and profile determines its ballistic coefficient (BC).

For instance: a bullet fully constructed of copper will be longer than one fully made of lead, or lead and copper, if the weight, caliber and BC are the same. (The pic on the left has two 350gr/.458″ bullets side by side near the center. On the right is the 350 TSX and on its left is a 350gr Hornady. Note their contrast in length.) The obvious reason being that lead is more dense (heavier) than copper, or copper alloy. So it takes more “space” in the cartridge case in using a monolithic bullet of copper (or copper alloy) than it does for one that does the same thing in ballistics if most of its weight is lead. There are exceptions to that general rule which is explained in the following paragraphs.

There are advantages and some disadvantages to each depending on intention. For example, I’ll not use the Barnes TSX’s in my 9.3 x 62 because  their length takes up room in the cartridge that should be reserved for powder, if COL is nominal as in bolt-action rifles. One the other hand, the Noslers of the same weight have much better BCs and are shorter, allowing more of the best component powders to be used.

Still, the bullets favored (in general) for my .458 Win Mag are the 300, 350 and 450 TSX’s. Because of the long “freebore”, I can seat them out as far as the grooves in the bullets’ shank allows — that is the bottom groove, or cannelure, which takes no more space from the case than any component bullet made of pure lead or copper and lead — they all are seated to the same depth in the case making the COL longer for some than others.

So, if you get the gist of matters here, a bullets’ shape, or profile, may not only affect its BC (downrange punch) but how much of the best powder may be useful. If it’s too long, it will not allow the desired or expected MV, which will determine downrange efficiency, even though the BC may be superior to another of the same weight.

Another example: Several competing companies are now producing LR bullets (LR = long range). Not only are they intended for long-range shooting of game, but they are LONG! Keep that in mind if you load them, thinking they would be best in shooting game at, say, 450 yards.  They might have a higher BC, but if you loose 150 fps in MV due to cramped space in the cartridge, because of an action that is “standard” for the cartridge, your “streamlined” bullet may be no better than another of a more normal profile for the same thing, and possibly less so! Do a ballistic profile.

Construction and caliber are significant bullet entities, but, depending on possible diverse ranges in the same hunt, so is the aerodynamics of your projectile.

The majority of my big game hunts have imposed ranges of less than 200 yards, but not all. In previous blogs I’ve described several moose hunts in the north of our province where potential distances could range between less than a dozen yards to well beyond 600. The rifle and bullet was always the main concern. “Rifle” meaning cartridge. On my first trip, I was not fully aware of the physical context, except we would be hunting from a lodge on a lake about 5 – 6 hours from home. I took a .338 Win Mag and a .45-70 as backup. The .338 got to see most of the country that consisted of very variable terrain from high ridges to small lakes, streams, marshes and bogs. And all of it (other than the lakes, streams, marshes and bogs) heavily wooded. I recall sitting in a tangle of thick bush about 2 to 3 feet high for one morning in a likely spot on the edge of the finger of a small lake, watching for moose on the far side. Range could have been very variable. Directly across was approximately 250 yards, but to my right was more like 1/4 mile. I was loaded with 250gr Sierra BTs at a tad under 2700 fps. They had a thick jacket of 0.050″ in the base and shank, and 0.026″ at the mouth, with a BC of .587 above 2300 fps. Recommended hunting ranges = 100 to 600 yards. I figured there wasn’t much that could be added to that to improve matters for such a hunt — and I was probably right at that time… except for one miserable “fly” in the perfume! That being the weather! It rained… I mean constantly for three days and the two-piece walnut stock on my beloved Sako Carbine, soaked it in! I had to dismantle the stock from the rifle each evening for a dry-out, then reassemble it early the next morning! Did I really know where the poi would be after that? No, not really.

Everything can be perfect, even the bullet… But the weather can spoil those beautiful handloads and the equipment that shoots them! Nonetheless, I continued to be optimistic that given a chance, I made the right ballistic choice.

Let’s see the ballistic potential of that load compared to a 250gr RN:

Cartridge: .338 Win Mag

Bullet: 250gr RN Hornady (some might choose it thinking it better for moose)

BC = .291

MV = 2700 fps/4046 ft-lbs ( Traj. = -1.6″)

100 = 2400 fps/3197 ft-lbs (Traj. = +3.0″)

200 = 2120 fps/2495 ft-lbs (Traj. = +1.57″) zero @ 226 yds.

300 = 1860 fps/1920 ft-lbs (Traj. = -7.59″)

400 = 1630 fps/1475 ft-lbs (Traj. = -26.74″)

Comments: Had I decided on this bullet for my moose hunt, I’m sure it would have been a good choice to about 300 yards, and that’s farther than most moose are taken. But what if a big bull moose had peaked its head out on my right side at 400 yards? Well, it was a bolt-action loaded with four… that may have worked, but there are too many doubts. Would the bullet have expanded? And trajectory? And what if the first shot allowed it to get into the lake? And…

Hornady does make a much better 250gr for a context such as I’ve described – a 250gr Interloc SP-RP with a BC of .431. Personally, I’d have no reasons against using it, except the Sierra had a heavier jacket and much better BC.(The 250 Sierra is 3rd from left and the Hornady is seventh.)

But what about the load I did choose?

Bullet: 250gr Sierra BT

BC = .587

MV = 2700/4046 ft-lbs (Traj. = -1.60″)

100 = 2545/3595 ft-lbs (Traj. = +3.0″)

200 = 2395/3184 ft-lbs (Traj. = +2.25″) zero @ 245 yds.)

300 = 2252/2815 ft-lbs (Traj. = -4.51″)

400 = 2113/2478 ft-lbs (Traj. = -18.03″)

Comments: Whatever our thoughts might be about kinetic energy at impact, there’s no question in my mind that it is a factor — perhaps not as much as generally believed, but 2478 ft-lbs of KE is a real factor, and 1003 ft-lbs more than the 250gr RN at 400 yds can’t be ignored.

(From where I took this photo, it’s about 400 yds  to  the opposite shore line at about 3/4s the distance from the left edge to the right edge of the pic.)

Bullet SHAPE (profile) undeniably matters!

Til the next,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

A Bullet’s Killing Power — P1

Many have written on this theme; some being perhaps too scientific, others still being too simplistic for the intellectuals, and a few approaching this matter purely from a practical slant of “Does it work?”. Those of a scientific bent want the questions of “Why does it work?” and “How” to have priority.

I’ve already written a few blogs on this issue in the past. But new products in cartridges and bullets keep appearing in the market place, so updates and comparisons with those that have some history is inevitable.

Since this is a site for discussion of big-bore rifles and what we feed ’em, I’ll not go down “the broad road” of never ending discussion of small to sub-medium rifle cartridges that fill the pages of most hunting-shooting magazines and forums. The majority of readers, and others who want a discussion (ad nauseam) of the latest and “best” in 6.5mm, walk there.

It’s not that I’ve never had interest or investment in calibers and rifles from .223 to .308. As a matter of actual fact, I’ve owned and used (aside from several .22 LRs) a .22 Hornet, a couple of .223 Remingtons, a .25-06 (which I liked), three 6.5s, a .270 Win, five 7mms (including three magnums), three .30-06s and eight .300 magnums. And I handloaded all of those, except two that I recall — a 7×57 and one of the .30-06’s. Plus, I made handloads for a friend’s .308 Winchester.

Yes, I know that’s peanuts compared to those who own ten of each!

But I simply wanted to point out that I’ve never owned rifles that collected dust in a safe or cabinet.

For the last quarter century (or more) I’ve chosen to walk the “narrow road” of Big Bores and Mediums, with far fewer companions. I write my interests and experience, and there are those who seem to appreciate that, so I’m not alone or lonely in that regard.

Some who have experience with Mediums and Big Bores may tend to return to memories of the past as they age. If most of their experience has been with sub-mediums and small bores, then that broad path is where they continue to walk.

There’s nothing there that ignites my passion — except possibly a .300 magnum. That’s not to demean those who do, but whenever I go on a forum for an interesting discussion of hunting, shooting, reloading or cartridges and rifles, intuitively it’s on the Big Bore or Medium sections, and the animals suited to their application. Historically, I’ve written much about that so will not go into further detail here.

In the end-game, however, it’s the bullet fired by such rifles that determines ultimate results in the field. In that regard, there are five important factors involved:

1> Construction

2> Shape

3> Caliber

4> Weight (SD)

5> Impact velocity

Let’s deal with those in order without suggesting any priority. Yes, construction is vitally important, but a pretty bullet sitting in a box isn’t going anywhere! Similarly, impact velocity is also very significant, but without the other factors it’s meaningless — nothing could be calculated. So…

CONSTRUCTION:

If you’ve done much research or general reading on this topic, you already know that ongoing research by bullet manufacturers is indicative of their attempt to continually improve their products. Can you imagine the thoughts and feelings of a bullet manufacturer, that promotes their product as the ultimate projectile for any and all dangerous game, when a client using their DG bullets got stomped, gored, clawed or chewed by a ferocious beast that was only angered by those DG projectiles “guaranteed” to finish the job if the hunter put them where intended!

And that happens — even with today’s “wonder bullets”!

Just yesterday I was reading a thread on a well-known forum where a hunter was asking what would be the best bullet for a Kodiak bear from his .458 Winchester Magnum. And he wanted advice from those who had experience.

Guess what? Perhaps the best well-known guide/outfitter who is a terrific communicator and writer chimed in! None other than Phil Shoemaker! Phil had recently returned from a successful safari in Africa in which he used Ol’Ugly (.458 Win Mag) on Cape buffalo. Also, he’d finished off a wounded brown bear  a couple of weeks AFTER his initial responses to the question cited above, using Ol’Ugly again that somewhat altered his first recommendations. What bullets? And what recommendations? When Phil speaks (or writes) the rest of us sit up and pay attention! But even he admitted, in so many words, that he’d made a mistake in the choice of bullets he used to finish off the wounded brown bear. Among others, he recommended the bonded 500gr Woodleigh. Because he had a stash of those, that is what he used on the wounded brown bear. After that experience he no longer recommends that bullet for brown bear because it took four shots to finish the job! They expanded too much and too quickly, so didn’t penetrate adequately. (I must add at this point that after viewing that bullet many times from pics on an internet forum that had been tested in media, I’d be very hesitant to put much confidence in it due to its expanded shape. While it retained most of its weight, it looked like a flattened fan with “wings” in all directions and practically no shank left! I didn’t think it would adequately penetrate — and Phil has confirmed that.)

Now there’s a man, among men, who is honest and straightforward in giving advice of “what works”, and what doesn’t. Ultimately, however, he had to learn all that from personal experience, which trumps theory or commercials.

While I’ve never hunted grizzly or brown bear, I’ve invested thousands of hours and hundreds of days and nearly sixty months in the pursuit of blacks, involving twenty-eight years and over thirty seasons. And I too had to learn what works best on black bears from both testing bullets in media as well as in the actual shooting of bruins, especially in the use of .458 projectiles. There are .458-cal bullets made for deer and others manufactured for elephant. That involves a very broad range of  expectations from the same diameter bullets. Then, to further complicate matters, not all 300gr/.458-cal bullets are created equal, nor are 500-grainers! The 300gr Barnes TSX is a much tougher bullet than Hornady’s 300gr HP, with a BC of .234 compared to an advertised .197 BC for the Hornady — which is dubious! Why? Because Hornady ONLY claims a BC of .195 for their 350gr FP !!! I can’t get my head around that one!

<(The 350 TSX on far right and the 500 Speer on far left. In the middle is the remains of a core-less 350 Hornady FP)

And, as another matter of actual fact, there is at least one 350gr that will out-penetrate a particular 500gr while retaining 100 % of its unfired weight, while the 500gr held onto only 310 grains being stopped by the test media after only 6.5 inches of penetration! The 350, on the other hand, completely penetrated the 15.5″ of tough media, stopping against the final cardboard panel looking like an advertisement for that brand. The 350 was the 350gr TSX, and the 500 was the 500gr Speer Grand Slam that Terry Wieland pronounced a “good bullet” for African fauna of the large and dangerous variety, based on his tests in wet newsprint!

Phil, by the way, now recommends Barnes TSX, Hornady’s 500gr DGX (expanding), which he recently used on Cape buffalo, and Nosler’s 500gr Partition — expanding bullets only for bear. While he didn’t specify the weight of the TSX’s, he suggested a good 350gr should work well.

The problem with the 500gr TSX is that it’s too long and might loose it’s stability in flesh and bone. Plus, unless you have a long action where it can be seated “long”, it’s very challenging to get enough powder into the case to push it fast enough for expansion and stability in the tough muscles and bone of large game — even for the Lott!  I could push it to 2300 fps from my Ruger, but have already invested in the 450gr TSX thinking that it’s a better overall bullet in being significantly shorter, and being able to push it at up to 2400 fps from my rifle, employing AA2230 gun powder.

<(Those are loaded 450gr TSX’s)

So, my personal recommendation in .458-caliber for anything dangerous on this N.A. Continent would be the 350gr TSX at 2650 to 2750 fps. The 450gr TSX has a better SD and BC, so at 2300 to 2400 fps, it will hit harder but produce more recoil and a less flat trajectory. Either should work to 400 yards or so, depending on actual MV. They are promoted to give some expansion down to about 1600 fps. Of course, that is theory and it would remain to be seen if it works out that way. I shot a bear with the 350 TSX from my CZ 550 in .458 WM. MV was about 2750 fps, impact was around 2500 fps or so, but I don’t think the bullet expanded from a frontal shot on a medium bear. But the bullet never hit bone, making exit in the right-side flank. The bear ran a ways before making up its mind that it was dead. For a larger bear it should work very well, especially if it hits bone. I know Phil used the 400gr X-Bullet for some time on large game and it became his favorite. Unfortunately a 400gr TSX is unavailable. I think it would be the finest all-around bullet for big game if Barnes would make them. In lieu of that, one could make good use of the 350 TSX, or perhaps the 450 TSX.

Another bullet that shoots well in my Ruger #1 Tropical is the 450gr Swift AF (On far right of pic). Using H335, I’ve no trouble pushing it out the muzzle at +2400 fps/5900 ft-lbs. It’s copper and pure lead, so they tell us, with a partition, and the front core is bonded to the jacket. It has an excellent reputation, holding on to 90 to 95% of initial weight while penetration is very good, though perhaps not as good as the TSX of the same weight and application. The cause being that the TSX has gaps between its petals, so slows in flesh less quickly. In any case, I’d not hesitate in choosing either of those two for soft-skinned large game, as well as for bears, lion and leopard (big cats). Of course, recoil will be more severe than in making use of the 350 TSX by a factor of about 18% if each is driven at max velocity. And max velocity, or close thereto, is essential for confidence of good expansion for the TSX’s in particular. They are tough bullets.

An additional bullet that impresses me in .458-caliber is the Hornady 480gr DGX. I chose the 480gr over the 500gr for my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT. In testing it from my Ruger in tough media (when the 350 TSX and 500gr Speer were also tested, plus several others — of which I gave a full report in late 2017) at a reduced MV to simulate impact on large game at about 100 yards, it completely penetrated everything, impacting a ledge of rock behind the test setup, leaving the clear imprint of a non-expanded bullet of .458″. That WAS impressive compared to some of the others! Hornady has since bonded the hard lead core to the steel jacket — which has a copper coating to protect the rifle’s barrel. With a flat meplat of about 1/4″, it will do severe damage even if it should not expand at a low impact velocity of about 1200 fps. And, I’d expect, at that impact speed, for it to completely penetrate a big whitetail (350 – 400 lbs?) from stem to stern, or visa-versa! Or a big bull moose completely through the shoulders!

Those are a few examples of bullet construction. And companies are now paying more attention to the structure of a bullet to ensure that they accomplish what the hunter expects while giving a sense of security in facing down dangerous game.

Most bullet manufacturers are now producing monolithic bullets — either all copper or copper alloys. Some specialize in bonded bullets (lead core bonded to a copper jacket or copper alloy jacket). It’s obviously essential, I believe, that we need to know before the fact that a bullet intended for large or dangerous game will expand while holding onto most of its weight, and penetrate not merely to vitals, but cause destruction in the process. Bullet construction, more that anything else, is the determining factor.

Next: bullet Profile and Caliber.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .458 Winchester Magnum — Update

Since the purchase of the Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag “Tropical” in August of 2018, I’ve been testing a variety of bullets and loads. This is a report on that activity and an evaluation of the same.

From mid October, 2018, to sometime in April, 2019, I didn’t visit our range due to winter weather conditions arriving somewhat early in late October to early November and lasting into mid April of this year. I did some shooting in late August and September of 2018, and carried the rifle into a remote hunting area in early October. That was it for 2018. In the meanwhile I purchased some additional bullets and made plans for loads to start the 2019 spring season as soon as possible. I’ve reported some of that activity on the Accurate Reloading Forum, BIG BORES, .458 Winchester Magnum thread.

Generally speaking, that involved becoming more familiar with the Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum in shooting handloads of component bullets in 500gr, 480gr, 450gr, 400gr, 350gr and 300gr. In addition, I did some limited shooting of handloaded 470gr hardcasts and the 330gr Barnes Banded brass solids.

But due to an impending cataract surgery in May of this year, I quit shooting for a few weeks prior to that event; and I didn’t pursue shooting again for three weeks after surgery. I also purchased a Lead Sled that would nullify most felt recoil. Thereafter, I never shot anything like 15 to 20 rounds in a single sitting. I did take my CZ 455 (.22LR) along for more trigger time and practice.

I wanted to see if the 24″ ported barrel of the Ruger #1 in .458 could match the 25″ of the former CZ550 in MV and accuracy. For some loads I had to increase the powder charge by 1-grain; the 350 TSX as an example of that at 2760 fps. For the 500s there didn’t seem to be much loss, if any at all.

In seating all bullets as long as possible, while still having enough in the case for a solid grip on the bullets, which I’d also done for loads used in the CZ550 with its 3.8″ long action, I found that I could attain, and in some cases surpass, 2300 fps from the 500gr Hornady RN and the 500gr Speer GS.

*Here’s a list of the bullets tried this year (2019):

500gr Hornady RN Interloc

500gr Speer Grand Slam

480gr Hornady DGX — at 2353 fps (Hodgdon 4895)

470gr hardcast – at 2075 (RL-15) – not max

450gr TSX — at 2385 fps (Hodgdon 4895)

450gr Swift AF — at 2414 fps (H335)

405gr Remington — at 2085 fps (RL-15) – not max

400 Barnes X — at 2590 fps (H4198)

350gr TSX — at 2760 fps (H4198)

350gr Hornady FP — at 2510 fps (H4198) – not max

330gr Barnes Banded — at 2607 fps (H4198) – not max

300gr TSX — at 2980 fps (H4198) max

300gr TSX — at 2752 fps (H4198) – not max for hunting

*Most of the above was given previously, but for those who have not seen it, I provide it again.

My 1-lb can of AA2230 is comparatively “old”, having purchased it in 2010, so didn’t see much use prior to selling the CZ550 the following year. And I’ve been recently informed that the current manufacturer of that propellant is a different source, and it has been somewhat improved. My can, which is still about 70% unused and nearly a decade old came a bit short in MV compared to some of my old standbys, H4895 in particular, which was a recent purchase.

There were basically two gun powders that worked best in my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT for all bullet weights from the 300gr TSX to the 500gr Hornady. Those were H335 for the heavies, 450gr to 500gr, and H4198 for the rest. H335 was ideal for the .45-70 case since being a ball powder it allowed more into the case without undo compression. And having approximately the same burn rate as H4895, which is one of the best in the .458, it acted like I was using a full charge of H4895 in the .45-70 case, and still seat the 500s adequately, while still using a COL of up to 3.21″ for the long Barnes monos. That was 75 grains of H335 behind the 500 Hornady and 76 grains under the 450 Swift. That would not have been possible in using H4895, so I went with the ball powder that proved itself worthy of complete confidence through consistent and stable results. It was therefore natural that I should use those same two powders in my former CZ550 in .458, and for the same applications. In addition to those two, I also gave H4895 a try for the heavyweights in the .458 Win Mag since there was more available room in those cases. And in also seating the bullets long, that made my CZ equal to a .458 Lott. But I also discovered that I could exceed the .458 Lott COL of 3.600″ using the long Barnes bullets. That meant ballistics for the .458 Winchester in the CZ550 could exceed those of the Lott.

Indeed, as mentioned above, I’ve found it quite possible to duplicate all that in my current Ruger Single-shot, as previously explained in recent blogs.

The current load that I’ve settled on for walk-about-hunting of both bear and wolf is the 300gr TSX at 2752 fps/5044 ft-lbs. My intent, God willing, is to spend a few days this fall in that unhurried form of outdoor recreation. I will walk a bit, then sit a bit for some calling. A number of years ago I was calling moose and ended up calling in a big bear! You never exactly know what to expect from such adventures, but you must be alert to all possibilities. I have a variety of mouth calls, and have recently added a hand-held electronic caller with recorded sounds of deer, fawns, coyote and rabbits. It’s all fun that keeps one on edge! At times I’ll have a partner, and at other times I’ll be solo — at least that’s the plan.

The Ruger is heavy (needs to be) but comfortable to carry. It balances very well, and is very short overall for such a powerful rifle at 40-inches. On the stock I’ll put a stock cartridge holder, and limit the number of cartridges in the holder to five, which will add about 1/2 lb but not enough to upset the rifle’s balance. Of course, I’ll have a few extra in a jacket pocket as well.

The 300gr TSX load makes the rifle quite versatile for reaching out a bit in the case of a wolf on the far side of a small lake or marsh, plus in close quarters it will lack nothing for a charging bear.

The MV ballistics are similar to a .375 Weatherby firing a 300gr. But a .458″, 300gr is relatively short so will slow down quicker than a .375. Still, it’s a load that as sighted at +1.31″ at 100 will drop to about -2.00″ at 200 yards. That’s plenty good enough for that type of hunt as I don’t expect to be shooting that far in any case.

<(The 300 TSX as tested in tough media at 2650 fps from 5 yards employing my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT. Left click on pics for a better view.)

Here is the load and ballistics as shot yesterday at our range (Oct. 8/19):

Ambient conditions: Sunny but frosty.

Rifle: Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 Win Mag with a 24″ Mag-Na-Ported barrel.

Remington brass (1x previously fired in my former CZ550)

WLRM primers

75 grains H4198 (up 2 grains from previous results at 2687 fps)

MV = 2734, 2728, 2736 instrumental. Corrected average at muzzle = 2752 fps/5044 ft-lbs.

3 shots into sub-moa. Group was +2.25″ high, and 3/4 inch right. Adjustments were made to center that group at +1.31″ high dead over center.

Recoil will be about 36 ft-lbs with the Mag-Na-Ports, which, by the way, doesn’t seem to be more loud than a typical .30-06 — for some yet unknown reason.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that a .458 Winchester Magnum doesn’t need be reserved for shooting an elephant in your petunias!

Go ahead, use it on some hogs, deer, and an elk now and then. Many are doing just that, so why not try something different by way of a Big Bore, rather than going as small as current culture seems to suggest. There are far more .458 Win Mags out there than most “pundits” seem to think — or are aware of. And they are not going into oblivion any time soon!

Hunting and shooting isn’t just about killing something — as I believe most of us are aware of by now. It’s the composite of many things that may be perhaps summed up in a word — “adventure”. But if we have to kill something, let it be with an instrument that causes the least trauma possible. If it’s a .243, learn to shoot it precisely. If it’s a .458, learn also to shoot that one precisely. But I assure you there IS a pronounced difference in effect on the shooter as well as the animal!

Yesterday, at the range, I met a man whom I’d never previously encountered. It was a beautiful, frosty morning. I was the first to arrive at 8 am in order to get “set up”, including target, Chrony and rifle rests, as well as other accessories. I don’t like to be in the way of others who arrive later. The second was a fellow I’ve known for several years, much younger than I. Lastly was the unknown person — as least to myself, and he was older than the younger man, but not as old as myself — I’d say in his late sixties. Shooting was to start at 9:30 am, and while the second man was at the 300 yard berm putting up some targets, this “unknown man” and I chatted about moose hunting. It turned out that he’d shot a bull moose in the same northern jurisdiction as myself. He described in great detail the rain and wind that lasted for about 10 days before there was a break in the weather. The following day was good, and he shot a bull moose at around 150 yards. But he shot it a total of six times. After three shots it went down. But it didn’t stay down. It got up and started to move away from him and he shot it three more times and it went down to stay.

The rifle and load? A .30-06 shooting 180 factory fodder. None of the loads fully penetrated the moose through the lungs from broad-side hits! I told him I shot mine using 250gr Nosler Partitions from a .340 Weatherby. The first shot was broadside at 165 yards through the lungs from an offhand position, and not only did the bullet land within an inch or so of where I aimed, but it was a pass-through, with blood and lung tissue splattering over the bushes on the far side for twenty feet! On the second shot the moose went down on the spot! And those were lung shots — not CNS hits! I waited for my son to arrive from his blind at 350 yards from me. He wanted to see the bull that was in a bit of a hollow and out of sight. He got too close and the bull staggered to its feet, but wasn’t going anywhere. I gave it another in the seat of its pants and it went down to stay. In total, it moved not more than half its length from where I fired the first shot.

The point: larger bores, bigger bullets and speed DOES make a difference! And a significant one at that — most of the time assuming good bullets and hits where they should be!

The .458 Winchester Magnum can do all that and more — if we can manage its potential. That’s a challenge to those who want to climb this “mountain”.

At this point I feel a need to give glory to my LORD, and public thanks to a friend before terminating this piece.

Most of you know that I’ve professionally been a pastor/missionary most of my adult years — and still am part-time — and own a “Rev” before my name for some official purposes, which I never otherwise use, much preferring “Pastor” by those who know me in that role. That’s sort of a preamble to what follows. I want to preempt any notion that what I have to say from this point on is therefore some sort of “professional” statement. It is NOT! It’s simply a confession of faith as a Christian.

Several weeks have past since an “accident” occurred at the range to my Ruger Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum. I had just finished firing five medium loads of a 470gr hardcast at around 2075 fps. I then removed the rifle from the Lead Sled, looked it over (which I always do) and to my utter horror noticed a hairline crack extending from where the butt stock attaches to the action for a full 5 – 6 inches, then another crack right where it touches the action!

To put this in perspective, I’d cleaned the barrel and all external parts the evening before coming to the range. I had previously been given a “head’s up” by the “second” man, mentioned above, that the Lead Sled had a reputation of cracking stocks on heavy magnum rifles. There is no “give” for the stock to move rearward under severe recoil, therefore tremendous pressure must be endured by the stock all by itself. (Recently, I’ve abandoned the Lead Sled for the .458 Win., taking that force on my body that moves rearward under recoil.)

Immediately, I knew what was involved. It could not be repaired in any manner that would render it capable of handling .458 Win Mag loads! Replacement might take a year or more! We’re not as fortunate in these matters as those south of the border. Even then, costs could amount to + $500, taking into account shipping from Ruger, Canadian tax, import duties, and exchange on the Canadian dollar! For a senior on a fixed income, that’s no small amount!

I prayed about it, and immediately had peace! I KNEW my Father in heaven would take it in hand, as I had put it there. No worries from that point on! Within a couple of days I mentioned the problem on the AR forum as I’d been sharing test loads, and said I’d not be able to continue due to the cracked butt stock. It was not, believe me, with any intention of getting sympathy or anything else, it was simply to inform others that I’d not be able to continue contributing to the thread on the .458 Win Mag.

Well, Dr. Ron Berry (known as RIP on the forum, except for a few friends who know him as “Ron”) immediately wanted to know how he could get a “spare” (as he called it) to me! We dealt with it privately, and within about a week I had a “new” Tropical butt stock for my Ruger Tropical in .458, pictured on the header! I gave, and owe, many thanks to Ron, but did not forget to give thanks to my heavenly Father! Ron may not know this, but his generous gift was the hand of God in blessing me! As James, the brother of our Lord, wrote it in his epistle: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father … who does not change like shifting shadows”. (James 1:17)

It’s Canadian Thanksgiving time, so what an additional reason for offering thanks to my Father above, while not forgetting my generous friend… Thanks again Ron!

Til the next,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

What is the Best BIG-GAME Rifle? — P4

My Big-Bore Rifle for large and dangerous game (moose and bear) is the .458 Winchester Magnum, as you already know if you’ve spent any time reading my blogs.

But there are, of course, other Big Bores that could serve for the same general purposes though they are not as popular, nor do they have the great versatility of the .458 Win Mag. I believe all that has been adequately covered here in previous articles.

Nonetheless, let’s delve into that theme once again. The most popular after the .458s are the .416s. They do have a solid reputation in Africa against DG and could serve admirably for some of the plains game, and the likes of moose, bear and elk in our neck of the woods.

I’ve written my thoughts on the .416s a few times in the past, and have confessed an interest in them. But for myself they would only serve to conflict with .458s as there is only so much money and time that can be dedicated to the sport of hunting and shooting. So, it would have to be one or the other, not both and, for myself. Since the .458s – the Winchester version and the .45-70s – have consumed an inordinate amount of time and money, and there is still far too much to be learned and experienced from them, so I can’t imagine myself getting involved with what I’d consider a “runner up” in a .416 “Whatever”.

Yet, there are quite a few who have them. For what reason? A good portion of it is nostalgia. “Nostalgia – a longing for something far away or long ago or for former happy circumstances”. – New World Dictionary of The American Language. Then the belief that they “kick” less. How much? Mostly they’re not sure, but think that must be the case since they shoot smaller-bore, lighter bullets. But most burn more powder than the .458 Winchester. For example: The .416 Rigby is an oldie that has a greedy appetite for gun powder — right on the heels of the .416 Weatherby. The .416s Remington and Ruger are both on a more stringent diet but produce the same work. Since I have a rather strong pragmatic bent, I’d choose one or the other of the latter two. But alas, they also come short of the .458 Win Mag’s abilities that consumes still less, or no more, of the propellants that make projectiles happy.

Since historically I’ve gone into considerable detail in this regard, I’ll not do it again except to say that whatever your Big Bore might be, love it, shoot it, and don’t for goodness sake let it feel lonely.

Others still – that is very few “others” — like something “different”, so being somewhat jaded (bored) with their current lonely collection, they opt for a 450 – 400, a 404 Jeff, or a “Whatever”, hoping for a relationship that will last longer than most marriages! (By the way, my wife and I celebrated our 62nd anniversary in June.)

Ho-hum… get a life and buy a .458 Winchester, explore its vital features, take it to a dance… er, safari, and live happily ever after! Then you won’t have to get cramps and headaches over the schizoid, lamb duck, inefficient rifles you’ve been feeding for the past half-century.

Then there are the Mediums: This is where the action is… or where most of it should be. Mediums are thought to be more than .30-caliber and less than .40-caliber. The craze over the 6.5s (.264- cal) will ware thin sooner than later, I believe. People get caught up with “new” toys. “New”! .26-cal goes well back into history! Why is .26 better than .27, .28, .30, .32, .33, or .35? Tell me, please! Don’t bother though, you’d be wasting your breath… I promise I’d NOT be impressed.

Outside the mega-blasters, I believe the following to be the best of the MEDIUMS: .338 Winchester Magnum; .340 Weatherby; .35 Whelen; 9.3 x 62 and the favorite .375 H&H.

“Best” as in common, reasonable ballistics, price, and handloading components. There are a few others that try to compete with these but have, or are, failing in their attempts.

For example: there are several relatively “new” .338 magnums that have come on the scene over the last few years, but really they only “do” what either the .338 Win Mag or .340 Weatherby have already “done”! The .35 Whelen has been around almost as long as the .375 H&H and the 9.3 x 62. What one of these three will do, or has done,  the others live on the same street and go to work in the same places.

My favorite, of course, of all those, and I’ve owned and used each one, is the historic 9.3 x 62. But I’d NEVER cast dishonor or disrespect in the direction of any of them.

What the 338 Lapua can do, the .340 WBY has done! What the .375 Ruger can do, the .375 H&H has done! Etc. But for the Lapua and Weatherby you need a long barrel of 26″ to make them sing. The .338 Win Mag and the .375 H&H can make good music from 24″ pipes! The .35 Whelen and the 9.3 x 62 don’t miss the high notes if sung through 22″ tubes. And so on…

Frankly, I’d be happy with any one of them when used on the fauna mostly known as big game across our great lands. Yet, I think now I’d pass on the Lapua and the .340 since they do require at least 26″ barrels to make them efficient.

My nominations would be three of the five mentioned at the outset: .338 WM, .35 Whelen or the 9.3 x 62. Why not the .375 H&H? Just because the H&H stands close to the true Big Bores and can do most of what they do. I (personally) see it as sort of a competitor with the Big Guns! Hunters who don’t want to deal with the recoil of a .458 Win Mag, for example, will often settle for the .375 H&H. And with the “new” projectiles, they often succeed just as well. But, I think it’s important to keep in mind that they are most often backed up by a PH toting a Big Bore! Nonetheless, those who go to Africa these days often take only one rifle, and in a majority of cases that will be a .375 H&H. Question: If they didn’t have a PH backing them with a Big Bore would the .375 still be their cartridge of choice?

In correspondence with the late John Wootters, he said to me that he didn’t want to have to depend on a PH if matters turned sour. That reflects my sentiments as I’ve mostly been solo when I squeezed the trigger on big game.

In sum, I believe the .375 is more of a specialised cartridge in a North American hunting context for the likes of the large and dangerous fauna of Alaska, as an example of that impression, though I did tote mine (an M70) for black bear and moose in our province. On the other hand, the .35 Whelen has proven its worth in harvesting any N.A. fauna from whitetails to giant moose, with grizzly/brown bear thrown into that mix. As well, it has had great success on other continents dealing with similar size game. And it has done it in burning about 80% of the fuel required for the .375 H&H or .375 Ruger! And considering the differential in “kick” between the .35 and .375 — about 32 ft-lbs vs 42 ft-lbs, or 3/4s the recoil of the H&H, make mine a .35 Whelen that will do basically the same things in N.A. as the H&H. Or better still — in my view — the 9.3 x 62, which is the .35 Whelen, plus! It’s called “expansion ratio”: the ratio of the case capacity to bore volumn. The larger the bore in relation to case capacity makes a cartridge more efficient than another of a smaller bore in relation to case capacity. Straight-wall cartridges are therefore the most efficient (most potential KE for amount of powder burned). Next are relatively large bores with minimal shoulders. That’s what makes a 9.3 x 62 nearly as “powerful” as a .375 H&H, and more powerful (handloaded) than a .338 Winchester Magnum that burns more powder to attain less energy or momentum when a “faster” powder is used in the 9.3 x 62. And why the .340 Weatherby (.338-cal) has up to 700 ft-lbs more KE at the muzzle than the .300 Weatherby, though they share the same case — the .300 necked to .338. Equally so for the .35 Whelen over its parent, the .30-06. When each is handloaded to the same psi the .35 Whelen has a 600 ft-lb advantage when each employs their best powders and bullet weights.

Oh yeah… I know the .338 Win Mag is also very popular, and with the proliferation of bullets from 180gr to 300, what’s there not to like? Yes, it can do whatever you need to have done on this continent, and several others as well, from medium to large game. But it too needs at least a 24″ tube to attain any meaningful advantage over the .35 Whelen. I’ve owned a few, so ought to know. In my experience (and view), the Whelen is handier, burns less fuel and can do 100% of what the .338 Win can do — or was intended to accomplish — and it’s been around much longer. In shooting 225s, which seems to be the favorite weight projectile for the .338, reduce the barrel length to match the typical .35 Whelen at 22″, and any meaningful distinction in effect on an elk or moose between the two will be in bullet placement and perhaps their construction. As stated — it takes less propellant to accomplish the same effect. In other words, it’s more efficient — and the 9.3 x 62 is more efficient than the .35 Whelen. All of which is due to larger bores. The larger bore of .358-cal over .338-cal gives it a 12.6% larger cross-sectional area than the .338. That amounts in a practical advantage of using a lesser amount of a faster burning powder in the .35 Whelen to get the same or similar results as the .338 WM of the same barrel length. Less powder burned also means less recoil. So while I have good thoughts in favor of the .338, I prefer the .35 Whelen.

As y’all know by now… I went looking for another .35 Whelen and came home with a 9.3 x 62… and have never looked back!  But, if all I had for hunting purposes for the rest of my days on Planet Earth was a .35 Whelen using home-brewed ammo, I’d shed no tears. From my experience, it will easily make 2600 fps firing excellent  250 grainers from a 22″ barrel. And that’s plenty for anything North America has to offer, including the “big bears” and the giant moose of the Yukon and Alaskan variety.

There are other pluses for the handloader: Cases can be formed from the ubiquitous .30-06 brass, and there’s an abundance of good to excellent powders and bullets available “off the shelf”. Woodleigh makes a 310gr for the likes of buffalo, and Swift a 280 for overweight fauna. Given the chance, I’d use it on Cape buffalo without qualms, where legal. Then, there’s a myriad of pistol bullets for varmints and practice. Do you want to make your own? Lots of moulds out there too.

So my nomination for a single BG medium rifle for N.A. is the .35 Whelen… unless you already have a 9.3 x 62, which has superior factory ammo and slightly more potential for the handloader.

Yet, I’ve already chosen the 9.3 x 62 as a minimum for ALL big thin-skinned game and the .458 Winchester Magnum as the OPTIMUM!

Til the next on .458 Winchester Magnum “Updates”.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL