Rifles I Should Have Kept — Part 1

I’m not a nostalgic person, per se. And I don’t live with vain regrets. As the saying goes:”There’s no point in crying over spilt milk.” You can’t get it back into the bottle. But I do believe in admitting (confessing) my faults, weaknesses and sins (Gr. = “missing the mark”) to my Maker, and then like the great Apostle Paul of the Scriptures, “Forgetting that which is past, I press on toward the goal” for which God called me in Christ Jesus.

All of which is to say that while we shouldn’t live our lives with vain regrets, we SHOULD learn something from mistakes, failures and even our sinfulness. And THAT brings me to our subject.

This is NOT about rifles I shouldn’t have bought in the first place, but about those I should have kept! But where to begin…

I discovered a trait in myself that I formerly never knew existed until I began buying rifles I didn’t need. These were “investments”. Or so I thought. And claimed. They were true bargains that I was quite certain of “flipping” and making some money on for the purchasing of other rifles that I really wanted. The problem was that some of them proved to be “too good to be true” and I wanted to keep ’em!

The FIRST attempt to upgrade in value and satisfaction involved a Winchester M70 in .375 H&H. It was like a NIB rifle. When I first encountered it at a trade show in Toronto, I thought it was indeed a new, never owned by a customer rifle as it was being sold/traded by a gun dealer. As it turned out, the dealer was a wealthy young man who, with his father, owned several nursing homes (legalized printing of money). The business of selling and trading rifles was a hobby of the father who, due to age, could no longer manage it. So the son was seemingly very happy to trade this M70, .375 H&H for my “beat up” Sako FS Carbine in .338 Win Mag without questions asked or even seeing it! I thought I had just robbed a bank! But he was happy with the deal as that is what it was all about for his father! A few rifles, more or less, didn’t seem to matter as it was not a primary, or even secondary, source of income. That rifle was handloaded and went both moose and bear hunting but the trigger was never squeezed with either big game in its glass sights– though it also had irons as well.

(A modern version of the Winchester M70 in .375 H&H — in looks, identical to mine)

The SECOND that I recall of this nature was a Ruger M77 with a stout 22-inch barrel, a lot of extra metal and a tang safety that makes more sense to me than any other kind, and — get this — in a caliber that truly gave some excitement — at least to me — a .458 Winchester Magnum! And to this day, my pulse rate goes up at the thought of owning another .458 Winchester Magnum. There is no other cartridge that does that for me, especially in a rifle similar to that Ruger. No, I didn’t NEED a .458 Winchester Magnum, but I NEEDED a .458-caliber to scratch an itch — in this case a .45-70 in a Ruger No.1. Instead, I got a like “new” solidly made Ruger in .458 WM at a bargain basement price with the idea of flipping it within a year or so on a like-new Ruger No.1 in .45-70. And that’s exactly what happened. The problem then was that I wanted to keep ’em both but couldn’t afford it! Or, so I though, thinking the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 would sooth my itch… which it didn’t, of course, at least not to 100%.

And I never fired a factory round in the .458, only handloads, and modest ones at that. A scope was mounted (I forget which one) and it would shoot three of those Hornady 500gr into a ragged hole of around 5/8″ (.625″). I kept velocity relatively low so as to prepare myself for the Ruger No.1 in .45-70. Little did I realize at the time that the No.1 Ruger in .45-70 could easily keep pace with my “modest” .458 loads at 1950 to 2020 fps! I never really ever pushed that rifle to see what it could actually do with those 500gr RNSP Interlocs as it shot them so well. The 500s went moose hunting as a backup. It turned out that it got used more than my standby Winchester M70 in.375 H&H as we were in the midst of a wicked storm of wind and rain, bringing down trees all around us, and I didn’t want to expose my cherished M70 in .375 to those terrible conditions! But I did shoot a bear with it employing the 350gr Speer Hot-Cor in a somewhat mild load of AA2015 at 2343 fps (4266 ft-lbs). Range was an estimated 70 yards. After I traded it for a slightly used No.1 in .45-70, I forgot about the .458, being totally enamoured by the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 and it’s ballistic ability.

(The first Ruger No.1 in .45-70 on the left. That was a small black bear shot by one of our sons)

The two Ruger rifles were similar in some ways and distinct in others: The Ruger M77 was a bolt action repeater, of course, while the No.1 was a single shot. Yet ballistics were similar, at least up to a point. A max load of the Hornady 500s was a tad over 2000 fps in the No.1 (tested at a lab for me at nearly 2100 fps from a 24″ test barrel), and about the same from the Ruger .458 WM from a medium load.

The weight of the .458 exceeded that of the No.1 by about 3/4 lb (ready to go: 9.25 lb for the .458 and 8.4 lb for the No.1). Both had a very solid feeling with the No.1 coming to the shoulder, aiming and firing the first shot a bit quicker than the .458 — or so it seemed to me. The No.1 in .45-70 was shorter by 4-inches due to the absence of a magazine, though barrel lengths were equal at 22-inches. My current Ruger No.1 with an improved throat of +0.30 inch is fully the equal of a 22″ .458 WM shooting the .450 Swift AF or the 500gr Hornady, making 2317 fps for the former and 2210 fps for the latter.

It seems that those who own the Ruger M77 in .458 WM are holding on to them as rarely, if ever, is one seen on the market. I don’t blame them. If one ever did appear on a Canadian market at a decent price, I’d be sorely tempted — if I were twenty years younger. In my view, it was one of the best bolt-action repeaters ever produced in .458 WM at a price not much greater than a .30-06, though it had a lot more metal in it than any .30-06.

As a matter of interest, perhaps to someone else, within the past week I visited one of my old haunts for rifles, Gagnon’s in Oshawa — I did a lot of trading there “back-in-the-day”. I looked at and handled a Zastava 9.3 x 62 FS with a 20″ barrel. I’d previously seen many photos but this was my first chance to actually examine and handle one up close. I was impressed with both handling and quality. And the price was very good for the product. The other rifle I handled and examined was another Zastava (Mark X Mauser) in left-hand action chambered for the .375 H&H. It had a 22-inch tube and both weight and handling were appropriate for the cartridge in my view. Again, the cost was exceptional for those with limited budgets. I said to the young man (within ear shot of the manager-owner with whom I’d done a lot of business in bygone days) that if they got one in .458 WM (in a RH action), I’d take a serious look.

I then asked if they had any .45-70 brass… A short “No” came in reply. “Any bullets in .458?” “I’ll check”, said the young man, who no doubt was a family member. And to my amazement and excitement, he came up with a very old original box of 500-grain Speer African Grand Slam SPs! They had a sterling reputation on African fauna. The price on the box — which may have pre-dated the turn of the century — was still too high for my liking, so rather than risk them sitting on the shelf for another 20 years or so, he knocked off $35! “You’ve got a sale!” Today, my bank account is thinner than it was, but I’ve new plans for my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 IMP! I love trying new (old) bullets! Plans? Some will be lobbed at 1800 – 1900 fps, a couple at 2200, a couple more for penetration tests along side some others for comparison… and one, maybe two, for bear! It’s good to have a plan. It helps me stay alive!

Why do I have a fascination with .458-bore, the .45-70 and .458 Winchester Magnum in particular? In total, I’ve owned eight rifles chambered in .45-70 — four Marlins, one of which was the short Guide Gun that I came to despise because of the muzzle blast due to the porting of the original and the too-short barrel. In my view the GG should have come with a 20″ barrel and no “sissy-slots”. There were two NEF single-shots and two No.1 Rugers, the second of which I had the throat “improved” by 0.30″ for seating bullets out of the case by leaving only 1/4-inch of the bullet’s shank in the case. For some all-copper bullets, that means a COL slightly longer than a .458 Win Mag COL. So, potential ballistics are on par with a .458 Win Mag from the heavy-weights of 450 and 500gr.

(The CZ550 in .458 W.M.)

In addition to the .45-70s, I’ve owned the Ruger M77 (22″ barrel) and a CZ550 (25″ barrel) in .458 Winchester Magnum. The CZ in particular was the full equal of a .458 Lott, when bullets were seated “long” in the .458 WM. All of that has been documented in my manual on the .458 Winchester Magnum (no longer in print – but if enough are interested I may have more printed).

Believe me, I’ve done a full search of my conscious and sub-conscious thoughts and emotions to discern the motive of this… er, “malady” of owning so many rifles chambered in .458-cal, and thoughts of yet another .458 WM at this advanced stage of my life.

The most significant aspect of preference for Big Bores on my part is the psychological or mental perspective. I’ve always been interested in the horse-power of motors in cars, trucks, big trucks and fishing vessels. To this day, I recall the HP of the in-line, eight-cylinder Chrysler marine motor in my dad’s new forty-eight foot, all-purpose fishing vessel. And that of the six-cylinder, larger displacement Chrysler marine motor that replaced it, when the first was worn-out: 145 hp @ 3200 rpm for the first and 160 hp @ 3000 rpm that replaced it. I also know the HP of the V12 diesel in the 70-foot fish dragger that replaced the 48-foot.

In just recently returning from Campobello, NB, as part of our 60th anniversary, where we spent nearly two weeks, part of the enjoyment for myself was in visiting the various ports on the island. The fleets have changed from utility fishing boats to more specialized vessels that harvest lobster and scallops. I had a good visit with my cousin, Stan, who recently retired from lobster fishing and handed over both boat and license to his son. All boats are now diesel powered and fully equipped with electronics. Costs? All-in, including boat, electronics and diesel; plus floating docks and equipment shed and traps = +/- $1,000,000, plus the license at about $400,000. Diesels? Mostly Cats and Volvos. His, now his son’s, has a Volvo diesel capable of 600+ continuous HP but restricted to just over 300 HP (working HP). Why do I know these things? Because of a fascination with measuring power. You understand, I’m sure, that a fishing vessel towing a big net over the ocean’s rugged terrain, or a scallop dragger towing a heavy metal drag for scallops, must have enough power to do so, as well as some in reserve if the net with all it’s attached metal and wood parts, or the drag for scallops that is thousands of pounds in weight catches on rocks and ledges, or has to climb a “mountain” 60 fathoms below the surface.

(Just two of twenty or more at Head Harbour on Campobello Island, N.B.)

Because of that background and awareness, and my father’s input on such matters, I perhaps have come to believe in reserves of power in ballistics. Though I’m sure that isn’t the only reason. It’s a temperament thing as well. I’m not unlike my father in a number of temperament traits.

There are those whose focus is primarily getting something done “adequately”, but with precision. They choose their rifles and motors based on that view of matters. That’s OK, but that’s not who I am. I’ve had my share of small bores from .22 Hornet to .270 Winchester, and frankly I find them boring, including the 6.5s. Precision is nice, and I work for it, but I’ll not hang my hat on it when it comes to keeping an animal on the ground where it was shot. In such a scenario, 1/2 moa is no better than 1.5 moa. But, depending on conditions, 4000 ft-lbs may be better than 3000 ft-lbs, whether at impact or at the muzzle. Just like the Volvo diesel, 50% is used continuously, but just in case it’s needed, 600 horses are available.

When I look at the hole in the end of the barrel of a .458-cal, I know there is a lot in reserve, if and when needed!

More next time.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Hunting Optics — Part Three — Scopes

(My spotting scope)

Scopes and rifle scopes. Just like binoculars, there are lots of scopes of various kinds and brands. And for different purposes, although their makers often try to create them versatile enough to be useful for general observations of both the heavens and the Earth.

For example, lightweight, compact and somewhat “fat” scopes, compared to their length, are mostly of the Cassegrain type, containing both optical mirrors and lenses. These have been adapted as spotting scopes, astronomical scopes and attached to cameras. There are many types of Cassegrains.

I built one that had three mirrors and no lens except for the various eye lenses. It was called (after the name of the original designer) a Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain. The main 12.5″ mirror was corrected to a concave configuration of an elipsoidal-concave shape with an F.L. (focal length) of 51.6875″, or F4.135 = 1313mm. The secondary, for increasing the overall F-ratio, was a 4-inch diameter convex spherical with F.L. = -20.04″. It was fixed at 13.9375″ inside the focal plane of the primary mirror giving an overall F.L. of 169.67″ (4309.6mm). Amplification by the secondary was 3.2826 for a final F/13.8. The usable part of the main mirror was 12.25″ due to a 1/8″ bevel on the edge for protection from chipping on the sharp external edge of the mirror. The third mirror was a flat 3″ diagonal (purchased) that turned the light beam at 90-degrees to the side of the telescope tube where a eyepiece mount for focusing was attached that held the various eyepieces for magnification and viewing. I had to study ray tracing and design, as well as depths and heights of curves on the front surfaces of the mirrors, then mount them precisely in a tube to make everything workable. From my notes at that time I’m told that the tube assembly (alone) with mirrors, focusing mount and spotting scope weighed 60 lbs. That was apart from the mounting assembly, to permit movement of the scope in any direction, which weighed an additional 50 to 60 lbs… not something you could pick up and move on a whim! In a permanent outside observatory, it was ideal, but for toting around the countryside, NOT! But both the mount and tube assembly had permanent handles for moving them inside whenever the weather was uncooperative. And the tube had dust covers at both ends.

The 12.5″ was given to a grandson, the 10″ was sold to a friend and I still have the 4.25″ RFT which is very portable, and gives first class daytime views as well as exquisite “rich-field” views of the heavens. Magnification can be amplified 3X by employing a Barlow lens in the focusing mount before inserting an eyepiece. I’ve had excellent views of the Orion Nebula and Globular Clusters under dark skies using this compact gem.

My Celestron C8 is called a Schmidt-Cassegrain (German and French combination) with a front lens of 8-inches of a specifically shaped glass to compensate for a spherical main mirror of 8-inches. The front part of the front lens is flat with the back side (inside the tube) of a very complex curvature that corrects any aberrations . The main mirror sends the light back to a convex spherical mirror of 2.75-inches that amplifies the f-ratio, sending the light back through a central hole cut through the main 8-inch mirror to a focusing mount that holds a diagonal mirror or prism in place (so you don’t have to stand on your head for viewing) and the eyepieces for magnification.

(You can see both the front glass lens and the main concave mirror. There is also a secondary convex mirror attached on the inside of the front lens. The adjustment screws for it are under the orange cover.)

There is also a commercial Maksutov-Cassegrain that is of Russian design, and more expensive to make due to the special glass and curves on both the front and back surfaces of the main front lens.

Lots of spotting scopes are made in these ways today, as well as lenses for cameras and astro viewing. Good ones are expensive.  For cameras they, of course, tend to be smaller unless for professional use. For astronomical viewing, the sky’s the limit (pun intended). For hunting purposes, they should be ideal.

At one of the shops where I’ve done some business from time to time, a couple of years ago a Burris Schmidt-Cassegrain spotting scope was on display. The aperture of the front lens was 3.5-inches (if I recall correctly), and the overall length, including the eyepiece arrangement, was less than a foot. It stood on a comparatively small tripod that made it very stable. It’s weight was less than three pounds. I had a peek through it — it’s optics seemed perfect. Three and-a-half inch aperture is about 90mm (88.9mm). Try buying a 90mm spotting scope made up of lenses only, compare pricing, weight and viewing with that Burris (it’s not the only brand) and no doubt you’d happily spend the cash required for a Schmidt or Maksutov-Cassegrain. My 8-inch diameter Celestron is far too complex and heavy to tote afield for spotting game on yonder mountain, but I have set it up in our dinette for watching swallows build their nest and feed their young in the birdhouse provided in the NW corner of our back yard — I could even watch the ants coming and going on the pole supporting the birdhouse!

I watch a number of hunting videos on my computer, often late evening. In these, there are frequently spotting scopes in use by guides, outfitters and PHs. If it’s thick brush or at relatively short range, binoculars are used. But in mountainous terrain or open vistas, I see the pros, and sometimes the clients, dragging and wrestling with heavy spotting scopes on bulky tripods. I know that many of these scopes cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars! It reminds me of when I attended the auto races at Motorsport Park a few weeks ago — the pros, who were taking thousands of photos for promos, had telescopic lenses attached to their cameras that weighed upwards of ten pounds, were about 90mm to 100mm in aperture and nearly two feet in length! One set up beside me as we leaned on a wire fence for steadiness, my camera (the G9) weighed a few ounces, is 4″ x 3″ x 3.5″ (with lens fully extended). His pics were pro and mine were amateur, but the G9 has been used by many professionals! Mine was a gift from family, and secondhand. They bought it new at around $750. What do you think those ten pound professional’s camera scopes would cost? (Yeah, I know, I’m into cameras again, but I’m trying to make a point about “new” thinking and progress in the design and manufacturing of sport optics.)

(Eyepieces and amplifiers for my Celestron C8)

If you show up at the range with a “long-tom” scope, with the right name on it, to see tiny holes at 100, 200 or 500 yards, some will be impressed and ask questions about it (I’ve been a member at the same range for nearly three decades and know how these things work!). If it’s a 20 – 60 X 80mm, with a name like “Swaro”, how much did you pay?

Me? I paid $178 for my 20 – 60 X 80mm, and that was part of a gift from family on my 80th. And it works well enough to 300 yards (max at our range). The tripod that came with it was cheap, so I’ve mounted it on an aluminium camera tripod with extendable legs. Any limitation in viewing is the atmospheric conditions and mirage, not the scope.

I’ll not give the name, but it’s the one “despised” by the Elite! Previously, I used the same Burris 25X, 30mm for more than a decade. It was good enough to 300 yards for the 1/2-inch holes made by my .45-70 and .458 Win Mag but not for 30-caliber or less. As I’m currently shooting a lot of .22 rimfire at 100, the 80mm front lens is appreciated. And, yes, for anything else out to 300. Recall that during bright sunlit days, the human eye pupil only opens to around 2 to 2.5mm. So ideally, magnification should be about 35 – 40 times for best effect from an 80mm objective lens. For a 60mm about 25 – 30x, and for a 30mm, 15 to 20x.

Concerning RIFLE scopes, the optical principles are the same. The typical 3 – 9 X 40mm is no better than a fixed 4 power by 20mm unless the intent is to use it at 8x at dusk as each will have a 5mm exit beam of light that a good eye should be able to receive. The effect will be that the 4x will have a wider field of view but the 8x will resolve twice as much detail at the same brightness (The physics of that has previously been explained).

The basic issues involving rifle scopes are three: 1) Deciding on how much magnification is wanted or needed; 2) Brightness at that magnification; and 3) Toughness. That mostly has to do with the rifle cartridge to be used, and the overall weight of the rifle in action.

(On my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag was a fixed 4x by 21mm Burris with an eye relief of 5-inches!)

This is much like the same issues involving binoculars and spotting scopes — it’s mostly a matter of tastes and bragging rights. But also servicing. As mentioned, in Toronto is a main Bushnell office and service area. Their products have a no-questions-asked lifetime warranty. For myself that means a drive to Toronto to deliver the faulty or broken rifle scope (or binocular, spotting scope, etc.), and another drive to pick up the repaired part or a new replacement. It could be done by mail but I prefer to talk with them in person with the product in hand, and not wait “forever” for our mail system to work as it is supposed to. So, service for me is a primary consideration as most rifle scopes that take a beating from heavy recoiling rifles will give problems sooner or later– no matter the name or initial cost — especially after a few hundred rounds. And, on my .340 Weatherby I mounted a Bushnell Trophy 3 – 9 x 40mm for which I paid $100. It came off another rifle that was turned in at the same shop. It looked like new, out of the box. New price was $150. I put 1000 rounds through that rifle with that scope attached, with recoil over 50 ft-lbs per shot, and the scope was as good at the end of it all as when it was mounted. I now have a 3500 Elite 3 – 9 x 40mm on my 9.3 x 62 that generates between 43 and 48 ft-lbs recoil every time the trigger is squeezed. It did finish off a Burris before that! But I like Burris just the same. A Nikon 2 – 7 x 32mm is on my Ruger No.1 in .45-70. Most loads are over 50 ft-lbs of free recoil. I like the Nikon — so far no problems.

(The .340 Wea. Mag. with the 3 – 9 x 40mm Bushnell Trophy.)

John Barsness has tested just about everything that purports to be a sane choice for rifles, and his bottom line is that all of them, no matter the price tag or name that they bear is a guarantee against failure down the road depending on how many shots are taken and the cartridge used. It could be after a few shots or a few hundred. None have proven to be invincible. He prefers fixed power scopes, as do I, because there are fewer internal parts to go awry.

(The scope described below was at one time on my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 IMP. Now, there is a Nikon 2 – 7 x 32mm shotgun scope on it — see the header.)

I still have a fixed 4x by 20mm silver Safari Burris that I purchased over twenty years ago. It has been on just about every “hard kicker” I’ve ever owned, including numerous .45-70s, a .458 Win Mag and now a 12ga magnum shotgun. Somewhere early on, the crosshairs went out of focus. With my extensive background in eyepieces, many of which I’d disassembled and reassembled to understand how they worked, I removed the retaining ring that held the first acromatic lens in place, removed the lens and spacers, adjusted the distance between lenses, screwed the retaining ring back in place and the crosshairs were in focus with the field of view! Never has there been a problem since. The idea of nitrogen purging to keep out fogging-up is mostly a myth. That scope has never fogged, nor have any astro eyepieces that I’ve tinkered with in a similar way. My first binocular, the 10 X 50 Bell and Howell has had the right eye lens removed on numerous occasions, the various lenses removed and reassembled in a different order to give a higher magnification and wider angle, That eye lens has never fogged or given any kind of distortion to the very edge of it’s field of view. I DON’T RECOMMEND THIS BE DONE BY ANYONE ELSE WITH ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH EYEPIECES, but I’ve done it on countless occasions to give different effects and learn about eyepiece construction.

That particular Burris, fixed 4x, was sold to me at discount because “they” sent the wrong scope to the store… not the one ordered for a client. At that time, the retail price marked on the box was about $365 (That was a lot of cash nearly thirty years ago!). I got it for $265.Since the repairs I made, it has never let me down in the sense of expectations for a 4x by 20mm.

I’ve written as I have just to say that name brands and price tags might mean something, but not everything when it comes to optics for cameras, binoculars, scopes and rifle scopes. Down the road, I might buy a product from Burris again, but then maybe not. That same applies to any brand. I had a fixed 4x by 21mm Burris on my CZ550 .458 Winchester Magnum. Never a problem, but the long eye-relief of 5-inches on both of those Burris’s on heavy recoiling rifles sure gave real comfort of mind!

That’s all for now…

Til the next,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Hunting Optics — Part Two — Binoculars

I’ve had an interest in many things: I loved my experience as a deep-sea fisherman. As per my last article, I became a builder of astronomical telescopes (better viewing than my commercial Celestron 8 because they had larger mirrors, except the 4.25-inch RFT) and a member of The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. I also enjoy auto and motorcycle races, as well as touring motorcycles which I was involved in for several years. Then, of course, hunting and shooting, and other outdoor recreation (camping, hiking and fishing) have always been main sources of staying healthy. Christian music has also been a major part not only of training and ministry, but within our extended family it has been a preoccupation both in vocal and instrumental arrangements. “But what do you have that you have not received?” (as a gift from God) — the Apostle Paul.

(Ooops! How did that get in here? Hey, that’s my old Gold Wing… but who’s that in disguise on the back? Could that be my wife of thirty-two years ago? In just five days we will have been married for sixty years! Unbelievable!)

As to our main subject, in my possession are five binoculars and one monocular. In addition, I’ve given a 7 x 35mm to my wife and an 8 x 40mm to a daughter-in-law. These were accumulated over a period of about 1/2 century.

Why do I choose binoculars over monoculars, since I can only benefit from the left side of a binocular? I’ve been rarely asked that question, but on a few occasions it has come up. It’s simple: binoculars are made better, have better optics, balance better, can be held naturally by both hands, have a much greater variety in sizes, shapes and models — greater dollar value. Plus, others have looked through my binoculars to get an even better view than possible from a monocular.

Another “trick” is this: I have on occasion adjusted the left side for general viewing and the right for specific views. I simply move the binocular left to view through the right lens something too close for general viewing. As an example, in watching birds at our closest feeders that are only a few yards away along the fence to the north side, I may adjust the right eye lens for those views without refocusing the whole binocular. Our back fence and the trees just outside that fence line to the west make excellent perches for birds as well, so I may just leave the binocular focused for the back fence area (farther away), and the right eye lens for some feeders close at hand. Otherwise, I’d have to constantly refocus the whole binocular if “chasing” birds from the west side to the north side of our property.

OK, now for specifics: My first binocular, as mentioned in the previous blog, was purchased at a camera store in Montreal in the mid ’60s for wide-angle views of the heavens. I still have it. It’s a BELL & HOWELL, 10 x 50mm, and heavy! Great for steady viewing but arm weary if standing. The best is to use a lawn chair that folds nearly flat, point it at the heavens and relax. But it makes a great bino for birds as well. It’s just too heavy and bulky for toting afield for hunting.

The several I’ve given away fit in here next. The 7 x 35mm, which I gave to my wife, was actually second. It’s a Tasco that has excellent structure, balance and very good optics. I used it for several years as a hunting optic, and it’s near perfect for that purpose. My wife uses it for birding. It is still in it’s original case.

Both of those binoculars have poro prisms which sends light through two sets of prisms in a zig-zag fashion that tends to make them heavier than those with roof prisms where the “barrels” are straight line without a crook in them. Both types have some advantages, the poro prism type being cheaper, though today’s roof prism type are more common and less costly than in the past, with better optical quality than when first introduced.

The case for the 10 x 50 Bell & Howell gave up the ghost long ago, though the binocular is in great condition and equals some of today’s best optics at eight times the value! In the ’60’s, it cost $75, which was a lot of money then — today, about $500 – $600.

Then, around twenty-five years ago, came another 7 x 35mm Tasco, one that has a fixed focus. It’s tough, and made in Japan in the ’90’s. It rarely, if ever, has been brought inside the house. Always, it is left in a vehicle for all seasons. And it never fogs. I don’t worry about it and in an “emergency” I could always find it somewhere in my van or currently in the CSUV (Compact SUV). So, I’m never without a binocular that’s somewhere handy. Yes, I know, it’s abused in ways that I would never treat my “high-end” binos. And still in it’s original case.

In the last dozen years, or so, I’ve added three more… one of exceptional class, and two “cheapies”. But don’t be fooled by those typical designations. As it turns out the “cheapies”, from a practical standpoint, are about as good as the high-ranking one! I’m sure there’s a lesson to be learned in there somewhere.

What lesson? You don’t have to believe me, if you don’t want to, but John Barsness on 24hr Campfire, makes a lot of practical sense in the Optics section. Amongst other things, he’s devoted much time, energy and expense in researching and studying such trivia. If you’re a member there, go there.

(These are the five referred to. Only the 10 x 50mm B&H is without it’s original case.)

However, I’m not exactly without experience either when it concerns certain optical applications. Having built six telescopes of the reflecting kind; one a compound (12.5″ diameter telescopic mirror, plus a 4″ convex spherical secondary) and a 4.25″ RFT (Rich Field Telescope), another 12.5″ RFT and two 10″ Newtonians as well as finishing a third 10″ for a friend, who being a master craftsman did the mount and tube, and ground the Pyrex mirror to the correct concave depth, and polished it. I did the final correction of the glass to form a parabolic concave shape from a spherical concave shape. That correction was to 1/10 wavelength of light or better. That’s throughout the whole front surface of the glass which became the reflective mirror when a very microscopic-thin coat of aluminium was applied (In a reflecting telescope the light does not pass through the glass but is reflected from the front concave surface). You can’t measure that with your typical ruler or draftsman’s tools. And just to get a perspective on 1/10 wavelength of light — that’s about two-millionths of an inch! I’ve managed all that with proper equipment and know-how. The two 10-inch,  two 12.5-inch and the 4.25-inch had to be corrected to at least 1/8 wavelength of light, and 1/10 is better, which, by God’s good grace, I was able to achieve. The first 10-inch was made of porthole glass that was too thin and would not adequately hold it’s parabolic shape so was ditched for a proper Pyrex blank of 1.5-inches thickness that resisted any kind of distortion due to it’s own weight or thermal conditions.

All of the dimensions given above have reference to the diameter of the mirrors, not the length of the scopes. The two 10-inch scopes were F7.7, or a focal length of 77 inches (1966mm). Tubes for holding the main mirror, and the secondary diagonal mirror, plus the eyepiece focuser, were about seven feet in length. They were made from Sono tubes used in construction to pour cement into, and for the 10-inch telescopes were 12″ inside diameter. The inside was painted matte black and the exterior had multiple coats of fibreglass impregnated with coloring.

To make such telescopes steady and manageable, the mounting system had to be rock solid and very heavy. The whole outfit could be brought outside (and back indoors) by making the seven-foot long telescope removable from the mount. The mount itself, with handles, could be tipped and rolled inside on it’s two heavy-duty wheels. The 12.5″ actually was much shorter being a compound telescope (something like the Celestron) with a special built tube of about 15-inches diameter.

The reason the mirror has to be a parabolic shape is so all light rays that form an image focus to the exact same point where the eyepiece can magnify it. The diameter of the mirror (reflecting type scope) or the objective lens (front lens) of a refracting scope, determine the practical limits of magnification, which is about 60X per inch diameter (50x practical limit) of the objective lens or mirror if the atmosphere allows it. When a small refracting scope of 60mm/2.4″ diameter of the front lens is advertised to give more than 60x magnification per inch diameter, don’t invest in it… that’s false advertising! 60 times 2.4 = 144 times magnification. Beyond that the image can be magnified to 300x if you want but that is like blowing up a photo to the point where you couldn’t discern even what the photo represents. Plus, at that magnification, the rotation of the earth would appear to be increased by 300 times… also any vibrations! So, even at 144x, images appear to be moving across the eyepiece field of view very fast — unless one has a very solid mount with a motor drive to correct for the earth’s movement. Even a 10x binocular that is not mounted solidly to a stand or table, but hand held, will magnify any hand or arm tremors, and unsteady body movements, by 10 times! And that, of course, applies to scopes as well.

(The same lineup as above, from L to R: the fixed power 7 x 35mm TASCO; the 10 x 40mm Bausch & Lomb; the 8 x 42mm TASCO, and the 10 x 25mm TASCO. In front is the 10 x 50mm B&H)

And another fact of optical magnification, especially if viewing horizontally, is that views are often greatly affected by atmospheric conditions. I’m sure you’ve had the experience on a hot day of the image bouncing around or being broken up by atmospheric turbulence, or mirage. That’s heat rising from desert sand, a paved road or roofs of houses and other buildings. The air we breath is also a lens many miles thick that is in constant motion. That’s why astronomical observatories are usually built far away from cities (and their lights) on top of mountains. The atmosphere is very “thin” up there. I’ve had nights when it was possible to use the full potential of my telescopes on planetary and lunar detail at 600x magnification, but those nights are extremely rare, something like one in fifty. On other nights, with the same scopes, 100x was really pushing matters. But on those crystal clear nights when the stars were “twinkling”, it was best for low-power viewing of nebula, star clusters and wide angle views. The twinkling is caused by very turbulent cooler air moving in to replace the warm air rising from the earth, buildings, etc.

(A 40mm Plossl and a 20mm Erfle. Those are high end eyepieces for my Celestron. The 40mm in particular is worth more than any of the binos except for the B&L)

I’ve had to purchase multiple eyepieces for those scopes. Then, with my 8-inch Celestron, I inherited five very expensive eyepieces (by which you examine the image formed by the front lens or mirror). I’ve literally spent thousands of hours looking through such eyepieces to examine extremely minute details in star clusters, nebulae, and details on the moon and planets. Some insist that has nothing to do with scopes and binos for hunting. Really! How did they come to that false notion? Have they spent thousands of hours looking through both? You DO learn some very important details from such experiences. Let me tell you how.

The diameter of the objective lens (or mirror) determines not only the amount of light entering the scope or binocular, but the resolution of detail as well, assuming proper construction and correction of the lens (or mirror). And today, even very cheap binoculars have excellent optics. It’s not the price of, or the name on the binocular that determines resolution. There’s a matter of optical physics that says you can’t get more light rays into your 35mm binocular than a 40mm. The 35mm bino has only 76.6% the light gathering ability as a 40mm, and only 87.5% of it’s resolution ability. Those are optical facts assuming each is correctly made as achromatic lenses, and have anti-reflection coatings that permit from about 97 – 99% light transmission. If we make the difference in objective lens (front lens) diameter greater, for example a 30mm vs a 50mm, the results are even more dramatic in favor of the 50mm. A 50mm has 278% greater light gathering ability than the 30mm, and 167% greater resolution, assuming, again, proper construction. But the 50mm will likely be around 2 – 2.5x heavier!

Another point to keep in mind, however, is what do we want to do with our binocular(s)? I have the 10 x 50mm, a fixed focus 7 x 35mm (Tasco), a roof prism 8 x 42mm Tasco, a 10 x 40mm Bausch & Lomb National Audubon Society edition (poro prism), and a 10 x 25mm Tasco (roof prism). (And, oh yeah, a VERY cheap, made in China Bushmaster 10 x 25mm roof prism type that I wouldn’t even recommend for kids!)

Costs? Apart from the 10 x 50mm B&L that was about $75 as mentioned, the 7 x 35 fixed focus, the 7 x 35mm given to my wife (Tascos) and the 8 x 40mm given to a daughter-in-law, I don’t recall what was paid for them. That was quite a few years past. The 10 x 40mm B&L was a warranty replacement for a 8 x 40mm Bushnell (poro prism) that I paid around $300 to obtain. It’s internal (plastic) baffles warped while left in my car in the heat of summer! In Toronto there’s a Bushnell office and repair under warranty shop (I’ve used it quite a few times for rifle scopes! They either fix it or replace it at no cost.). They offered me one of two as a replacement. I chose the B&L that was worth a lot more than what it replaced! The 10 x 25 Tasco was bought about three and a half years ago at a “big box” outdoor store in Oshawa for the huge sum of $12.50, marked down from $25! There was a big wire basket full of them in their small cardboard containers. I thought “What the heck…”. It turns out to be the bino I most use in both birding and hunting! And it has a neat little case that attaches to my belt. Later, at the same shop, they had a sale on the roof prism 8 x 42mm Tasco, marked down from $59.95 to $29.95. Of course, I always take a long look through them before purchase, and I bought it. It goes with me a lot, and is about as good as the 10 x 40mm B&L. It’s optics are excellent! I test all of ’em on the birds at our feeders.

(My wife bought this range finder for me as a Christmas present a few years ago. It works perfectly. So far, the maximum range at which I’ve used it is 562 yards. It’s a practical tool. Cost? $99.99 at Canadian Tire — plus tax of course!)

Tasco is one of those names considered by “elitists” as unworthy to even be pronounced by their lips! In “early years” of it’s history, it’s products were considered very good, if not best. Tasco went through a period of poor quality in its offerings, so many still despise the brand without giving it a fair chance. Bushnell bought the company, and the products are now second to none in my experience. I have three binoculars, a “high-end” rifle scope and a laser range finder all bearing that name since Bushnell took over the company, and I could not be happier considering quality and price! I’m no where near being, or becoming an “elitist” in such matters. But that is why I gave some of my credentials re: optics. I have two complete sets of very expensive eyepieces for my Celestron C8, plus two Barlow lenses that double and triple magnification of the eyepieces.The Tele Vue Plossls alone are worth more (each) than paid for any binocular except the B&L, so I’m not exactly dumb in regard to eye lenses. And the Tasco eye lenses in my binos are as good as most high-end optics! Put another name on them and they could pass as “Euros”.

Regarding resolution of detail: As mentioned, the larger the objective lens, the greater the potential for resolving finer detail. But that also depends on magnification. For hunting purposes, magnification and light gathering ability are most critical even though we aren’t examining a 1/4 mile crater on the moon! But as darkness approaches, the exit pupil from a binocular should be at least 4mm, and better still at 6 or 7mm. And magnification should be at least 6x to see enough detail to determine if this is the animal we want to shoot, or not. Why 5 to 7mm exit pupil? Let’s define “exit pupil”: It’s the size or diameter of the beam of light that exits the eyepiece (the part you look through). During bright sunny days (as might be the case in Africa), the pupil of the eye will close down to about 2 to 2.5mm. If the beam of light is 5mm only 25% of the available light will enter through the eye pupil. At dusk, just after the sun has set, the pupil will dilate to about 5mm to let in more light, and can effectively use a 5mm beam of light from the binocular. With a couple of minutes of legal light remaining (nearly dark), the pupil will yet expand to 6mm, or even 7mm in healthy eyes (why “night glass” binoculars are either 7 x 50mm or 10 x 50mm). The diameter (size) of the beam of light coming from the binocular eyepieces is determined by the front lenses diameter (say, 40mm, for example) divided by the binoculars magnification (say, 8X), in which case the beam of light would be 5mm, if your binocular should be an 8 x 40mm.
(Diameter of the eye lenses is a clue to the practical value of the binocular — Center B&H = 22mm; L to R: 7 x 35mm Tasco = 15mm; B&L = 18mm; 8 x 40mm Tasco = 20mm, and 10 x 25mm = 12mm. But you can’t have wide angle, high power and long eye relief in the same binocular or scope. The fields of view in angles are from 75*in the 7 x 35mm fixed power and about 60* in the B&L.)

So, as a rule of thumb, the best hunting binocular for daytime general use, including dusk to almost complete darkness, would be a high quality (NOTE: I DIDN’T SAY “HIGH END”!) 7 x 35mm roof prism type (roof prism types are usually lighter) that will still give a 5mm light beam to cover all conditions adequately. An 8 x 40 would be my second choice, though it will be heavier. I’ve used my 10 x 25mm quite a lot in hunting because it’s good enough for daylight viewing, and because it’s very lightweight, but it’s about useless when looking for bear as darkness approaches. And let us not forget that our eyes are lenses too. In the end, their condition is priceless! Are you thankful for yours? My one good eye has value well beyond all the binoculars of the world heaped together, because the most elite among them couldn’t begin to replace the value of my left eye.

In my experience for hunting, a lightweight 8 x 25 or 10 x 25 is perfect until near darkness. Then more light is needed, something like a 7 x 35mm or 8 x 40mm. Most brands today are perfect enough, but keep the weight down. Many, like other optics, are made in the same plants, or the same country, they just have a different sticker on them.

And all of that in 3000 words has been reduced to one short paragraph of 56 words, which would suffice for most readers who just want an opinion. Then, they would check opinions on the forums where many would tote “high-end” Euros that would cost $1000 or twice that… but would give no more “light” (understanding) on the matter. But a few, like myself, just want to know why. Why? It’s “name dropping”, that’s why.

‘Til the next on scopes… Yeah, rifle scopes too!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Hunting Optics — Part One — Cameras

(This pic was taken about two weeks ago at a weekend of GT racing at the Canadian Tire Motorsport Park, Bowmanville, Ontario. Left click on pics for enlargement.)

Optics have been a significant part of my rather long history — in relative terms of a man’s longevity in the current era. It began with a Baby Browning camera at about age ten. I probably wanted a camera before that age, and how I came to know about the Baby Browning I don;t recall.  My family didn’t live in a major city, or even a small town, but rather in a small isolated fishing community on a rather small island snuggled between the borders of Maine on the US side and New Brunswick on the Canadian side, so communication and information was often difficult to come by.

(Who actually owned the Island of Campobello was finally settled by the War of 1812 — it fell into the hands of the British and became a permanent part of The Province of New Brunswick. It bounced back and forth for a while though. Sometimes occupied by the American military as a strategic outpost, at others by the British. The Natives decided they’d best abandon it to one or the other of the pugilists and headed for the mainland. Good decision, but rumour had it that at the end of the war, the surveyor was drunk and it should have gone to the Americans. But hey, most of the wives came from the mainland of Maine! My paternal grandmother was American, and so was my wife’s mother! Most of our fish ended up in Boston anyway. And most of the surface land was owned by an obscure American company, but my dad actually bought ten acres along the shore line that had a house, barn, chicken coupe and a store. It was seventy-five years old when he purchased it with cash he’d made in working in Boston and Providence while in his twenties.).

All that to say, there wasn’t a store on the island that sold film or developed it! We had to go slightly over three miles across water in a fishing boat to the “big city” of Eastport, Maine, “the eastern most city of the USA”, for such possibilities. Or, a film could be ordered by mail through Eatons in Moncton, NB, and then returned by mail for development. That didn’t even qualify as “Snail Mail”. For the whole process to come to completion, the time-line, if that existed back in the ’40’s, was at least three months! I chose the smuggling route, at age ten!

As a further hint of “those days” — during WW2 and just after The Great Depression — most Canadian sources for goods and other products were either home made or came via “the mail boat” that had a route from St. John, NB to St. Andrews, NB, stopping at the various Islands at the mouth of The Bay of Fundy. That was also our mail service. The following has been reported as of long ago — by my mother who could never, never lie — that one family in the community ordered a set of “long Johns” for the husband and father — a giant of a man, from Eatons in Moncton. My mother also often used this source for some clothes and household goods.  Eatons would send a fall catalogue and a summer one, in full color, about 1 and 1/2 inches thick, loaded with goodies, even toys for kids! But at either the front or back — I forget which — they’d include this statement (due to the aftermath of The Great Depression, or The War) “In case of the possible shortage of products, we may have to substitute for an item not in the catalogue. In such  case, we will send a product of the closest description to the one ordered.” The family that ordered the “Long Johns” got curtains as a substitute!

So I used up my film(s) with great discretion! I don’t recall many of those photos, but one in particular was very memorable. (The diverse photos of this series are over 90% from my personal cameras. Most are from either my Kodak Z740 or my Canon G9. Those of the last 3 – 4 years are all from the G9.)

(Black bear taken with my 9.3 X 62 in 2013. Pic taken with the Canon G9.)

Living on a relatively small, but historic, island there were not many natural, and easily accessible, sources of fresh, clean water. It was a case of “water, water every where but not a drop to drink” — we were surrounded by the salt water of The Atlantic. And no drilled wells that I was aware of. Where it was possible to dig — and that was very difficult due to granite a few feet under the surface where there was earth — wells were dug, and much of those ten acres owned by my dad was bald rock. My dad shared a dug well with his cousin across the road. In times of drought, it was dry! So my dad hired a well drilling outfit brought in by ferry from the mainland of New Brunswick.

I was then eleven and wanted to take some black and whites of the well-drilling operation as that was a phenomenal event on Campobello. Three feet of earth and then solid granite. Matters proceeded very slowly with the drill getting jammed a few times and having to change the head frequently due to the hardness of the rock. At eighty-something feet they struck fresh water. The house was no more than fifty yards from a steep bank that plunged into the salt water on the shore line. The drilling operation was less than ten yards from the corner of the house. But “not enough water”, they said. So they continued for another thirty feet and struck what was considered to be a very good vein of fresh water, and decided to stop there at 112 feet. But they also decided to lower some dynamite all the way to the bottom to open up the vein of water. I, of course, wanted a photo of the blast with the water and debris going higher than the heavens.

Standing partway down hill, and about forty yards away from the well-drilling outfit, I hoped to time it just right! Watching through the small optic to frame the whole scene, my finger was one the small white button on top of the black plastic camera, and “BOOM”….. my whole body went into spasm, the noise was awesome and the ground shook like an earthquake had just taken place. But, I was sure that I got my “picture”.

The film was delivered to Eastport, Maine. Two weeks later the envelope with photos were picked up at the shop in Eastport. They also included the developed film, but no photo of the gusher of water and debris was included! I was dismayed. In looking at the negatives,  however, there it was… the gusher of water and debris well above the drilling outfit’s uprights! It was a double exposure… I’d clicked it twice when my whole body shook like a leaf in a gale!

I kept that little camera for quite a few years after. Then it was given away to some younger relative or other.

That was the beginning of my optics career. Many cameras have been added — and subtracted — since. Most were too heavy to tote into the field while hunting, but digital technology has changed all that. Today, I have two, a Kodak and a Canon G9. One or the other is with me whenever I’m afield, or on our back deck watching birds at our feeders. I like photography but sometimes wish I’d had my camera along for a particular unique opportunity that will not likely occur again. The Kodak has an excellent lens and along with the digital wizardry produces excellent quality pics, but it’s now nearing obsolescence — the batteries it works with are becoming more difficult to find. That’s the downside of digital electronics. It wasn’t a “throw away” camera either. Even the G9 has had its heyday and while batteries are rechargeable, soon they too will disappear from off the face of the earth, giving way to the “new and better”. I hate that because it was a gift from family members and worth twice the value of the Kodak. It’s something like when you build a load for a rifle based on a particular bullet and powder, and the companies in “their wisdom” decide not to produce those products anymore.

Still, a good digital pocket-size camera, or smart phone, should always become a serious part of hunting optics. When I shot my first bear, the story line is epic, but I became so excited that I forgot to take initial photos with the bear at the bait and on the ground after the shots. Pics were only taken the next day with the bear hanging on the “meat pole”. To this day, I regret that. I can only give details with words… but a picture is worth how many words?

(On the weekend of May 19 – 21, of this year, I attended the Pirelli World Cup Challenge at the Canadian Tire Motorsport Park and took over 250 photos during races and in the paddocks. I had opportunities to talk with crews, sponsors and drivers. This particular red one intrigued me. It ended up winning one of the top races. It’s name is SIN No.1 GT 4. The car was made in Bulgaria and it has a Corvette motor, of which they couldn’t use more than 40% of it’s power due to it’s aerodynamics and lightness. It’s driver was from Tampa, FL. During that race of about 35 cars, it’s pole position was 2nd, following a GT4 Ford Mustang. Seemingly, the Ford had no muffler — it sounded like that to me at least — while the little red car was on it’s tail coming up the long Mario Andretti Straightaway for around six laps — a road course — the little car was not more loud than a street version. I knew the Ford would soon be passed, and it was, then not much later lapped by the SIN No.1. I stood for most of that particular one-hour race at the top of the Andretti stretch, not more than forty-five feet from the center of the track where the top sports cars were hitting 200 mph. Of course there was a fence protecting the attendees. I’ve been to many races at “Mossport”, as we knew it then, which is about 45 minutes south of where I live. But to catch individual cars on film doing 150 to 200 mph at close range took some practice “shooting” to get it right.)

Disappointed that I haven’t started with rifle scopes? You do know that you can hunt without a rifle scope, don’t you? I did for several years even with a handicap. While hunting is not the place to learn using a camera, taking 250 pics of cars, trucks or motorcycles going over 175 mph might be a good place to start though. I do have other interests besides rifles and hunting, and I hope you do to.

The next optic, however, was a scope, but not a rifle scope. It was a 30mm “scope” for just viewing whatever one wanted to point it at. In my case, it was the heavens. I was a young pastor trying to keep a very worn car on the road of a parish that extended over 3000 square kilometres (1700 sq-miles), and married to a young wife who had most of the care for two very small boys. Gas was cheap but still cost $20 per week to fulfill obligations. That came out of a $50 per week salary — then there were repairs and winter tires! And I wanted to see the heavens. Longer story much shorter — I mounted the 30mm for steadiness at standing eye level and saw the moon for the first time at about 25X. That only wetted my appetite. A couple of years later, I had resigned my post and was heading for further education in “The Big Apple” in preparation for a specialized ministry. But I had several months between those events and was invited by my dad to join the crew of the NORWIN — a 70-foot dragger, fishing somewhere between Nova Scotia and the coast of New England. I made some extra money and used a hundred of it to buy a “real” astronomical telescope, a 60mm refractor with all the accessories, of all places, at Eatons in Moncton. When home, at my parents place on the coast of Campobello (we were all living with them at the time), I turned the telescope on the heavens. Thus began my long involvement as an amateur astronomer. Eventually, in Montreal, I became a member of The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and remained so for twenty-five years having built six astro telescopes on my own from 4.25″ to 12.5″ diameter. That was long before I ever owned a rifle scope.

(Just a 200 lb bear — and that little black box hung by a strap around my neck holds the G9)

Yes, I will yet discuss scopes, rifle scopes and spotting scopes. But before all that we will look at and through some binoculars. I still have my first and it was bought while living in the Montreal area in the 1960’s. The reason for it’s purchase was astronomical viewing.

So next on our agenda will be binoculars for hunting purposes and general viewing.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

The .340 Weatherby Magnum — Handloads — Part B

Of the nearly 100,000 Ontario moose hunters who apply annually for a moose tag — including all WMU’s where moose may be hunted, and including either sex and calves — far less than 10% would be hiring an outfitter. Of those who are successful in obtaining a tag, about 55% are members of a group of hunters and the other 45% have applied as individuals. Last year, in 2016, the total number of tags available were 10,757 while the total number of applicants entering the draw were 85, 499.

The number of  hunters in groups were 42,449. The number of groups were 7,868. Total tags issued to groups were 4322. The % of groups receiving tags was 55%.

The total number of hunters applying as individuals was 43,050 (I didn’t apply last year). Total tags issued to individuals was 5,370. Percentage of individuals receiving tags was 12%.

Had I been in the number of individuals applying last year, my chance of success would have been 1 in 8, or 8 to 1 odds against me. Then, success rates in harvesting a moose (any moose on the tag in a particular WMU) would have been around 25%, or 4 to 1 odds against me.

Matters have changed dramatically in Ontario for an individual moose hunter since my last hunt in N. Ontario. Back then, I was virtually assured 100% of receiving a bull tag if I applied every second year as a solo hunter in the particular area of my choice. But to travel 1600 kilometers (1000 miles) to get there was not a solo undertaking. Another hunter could hunt with me on my tag as long as he was licensed as a moose hunter. He could shoot “my bull” as long as my bull tag went on the carcass. The hunt was then over.

Today, the odds against final success of me taking a bull is 12 to 1. With the expense and distance involved to risk those odds, it is barely worthwhile. That’s one reason I’ve turned to bear hunting annually because bears are relatively close at hand, I can now hunt spring or fall, or both, and success depends on whether I want to shoot a bear, or not.

All of that information is to clarify why I no longer need a .340 Weatherby in my gun locker. But if I were 20 to 30 years younger with about 100% certainty of a bull tag for Northern Ontario, and a 1 in 4 possibility of filling the tag, I’d gladly make that journey every second year with a .340 Weatherby as my companion. As matters stand today, however, I’ve no plans to make that trip again. But I can still hunt a calf moose closer to home, under license and in season. A calf moose can go anywhere from 350 – 600 lbs. But beware of momma moose! She is very protective and we’ve had a few such encounters! Shooting would be at short range.

Another important factor that I’m very aware of is that the average reader of these articles is not an average shooter or hunter. Some would qualify as experts in one or more aspects of hunting and/or shooting. The “average” hunter that I’ve worked with, or been associated with, is much more limited in knowledge of ballistics and even scope of experience where a variety of game may be involved. Most, if not all of them, have little to no knowledge about handloads, and even less knowledge about the.340 Weatherby Magnum. I have been able to get a few involved in the handloading game. A close friend and hunting buddy of many years has shot a couple of bears — the last went 400 lbs — using his .270 Winchester stuffed with Federal factory 150gr Noslers. But he also hunts deer using his .270 and a 12-gauge as well as a crossbow. He’s a retired CO and has zero interest in making his own ammo, or what a .340 Wby. might offer. He’ll listen to my extolling this or that, but mostly he’s just being polite. So, I recognise that I’m preaching to a minority of a small minority who are members of shooting and hunting forums. And even then, too few of that number own, or have interest in, a .340 Weatherby. Some out of curiosity will listen (read), though. But today the .338 Lapua is “in”, at least for now. A certain number is even willing to pay well over 2K to own one!

But, realistically, how much would it cost to own a reasonably priced .338 Win Mag that could be turned into a very good .340 Weatherby? And, depending on your criteria, what bolt-action rifles might qualify from a simple rechamber job? Those questions, and others, I’ll delve into in the remainder of this article.

Any bolt-action rifle with a standard .338 Winchester Magnum chamber, and a long action that has also been used for cartridges such as a .300 Weatherby, .375 H&H, and others that handle cartridges with a COL of 3.65″, could be used. Some would require a bit more work by a competent gunsmith than others, but a late-model Browning A-Bolt or X-Bolt, a Remington M700, a Savage or a Ruger #1, all initially chambered for the .338 Win Mag might be best choices. Some others, such as an M70 Winchester with a little more work would also qualify.

In Part A, I’ve given the details of how my .338 Win Mag in a new Browning A-Bolt was converted into a .340 Weatherby by simply running a .340 reamer into the chamber and the purchase of a .375 H&H Browning clip magazine that attached to the floor-plate — and it worked without a hitch. Total cost was $120 plus taxes. After a couple of years of working with the rifle in the development of handloads and practice, I thought it would be an excellent idea to find a slightly used Ruger #1 in .338 Win Mag (Often, .338 Win Mags show up on used gun racks because after a few shots the new owner has decided it’s too much of a good thing!). And the #1 Ruger in .338 WM has, or had, a 26″ barrel for maximum effect but still as short overall as a “normal sporter” with a 22″ barrel. I didn’t succeed in locating one. I’m attracted to the Ruger No.1 and single-shot rifles. I’ve owned quite a few, as a matter of actual fact — still having my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (long-throat). That one was fired recently at the range employing a known load — the 350gr TSX at 2540 fps; a very accurate load. So, if a used Ruger #1 in .338 Win Mag should suddenly show up at one of my haunts for firearms, then what…..? Probably a battle between pragmatism and passion would ensue!

Was it worth it — that is, making a new .338 Win Mag into a .340 Weatherby? The short answer is YES. Would I do it again? The short answer is NO! But let me qualify those short answers.

If I were a younger man, say still in my fifties, I’d probably opt for a Ruger #1 in .338 WM with a 26″ barrel and have my gunsmith, Eddy, run a .340 reamer into it. Other than that it would likely be a Browning or Sako in .338 Win Mag. So, YES, if much younger. But not at my current age. I have the 9.3 x 62 Tikka T3 Lite that will do anything I want at that level of ballistics. From now on, most of my shooting that produces over 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle will be range work. As explained, I’ll not be travelling 1000 miles/1600 kilometers for moose again — it’s possible but highly unlikely. But I still enjoy developing loads and shooting Mediums and Big Bores that produce 4000 to 5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle end.

Here are the strengths of the .340 Weatherby Magnum as I see it, and have experienced it:

1) It’s a very efficient cartridge. Being the .300 Weatherby Magnum “necked-up” from .308-caliber to .338-caliber, it holds and uses approximately the same amount of powder of the same type and burn rate, but produces upwards of 650 to 750 ft-lbs more energy at the muzzle, depending on bullet weights and loads being used.

2) Making a comparison again with it’s sibling in .30-caliber, while the most common bullet weights for the .300 Wby is 180gr to 200gr, in the .340 it’s a 250gr. Plus, the .340 has a larger bullet cross-section area of 0.08969 sq-inch versus 0.07447 sq-inch for the .300, or 20% greater, which in some minds may not count for much, but it must have value or there would be little purpose in larger bore rifles. Then, of course, I think that momentum is also a factor, as do many past and present ballistic gurus. Col. Whelen being one of them. At the muzzle, a 250gr at 3000 fps has 25% more momentum than a 200gr at 3000 fps. So, adding all things together, the .340 has some ballistic advantages over it’s older brother, or Roy was wrong in his thinking, to say nothing of the creators of the .338 Lapua as a sniping round at long range! The downside, of course, is the attendant increase in recoil. That is the added “expense” for additional power. Given the same weight rifles burning the same quantity of powder, at the same velocity, a 250gr from the .340 will have nearly 30% more back thrust (recoil) than the .300 Wby firing a 200gr. Is it worth it? That’s for you to decide.

Does anyone NEED a .340 Wby? Probably not, but then does anyone NEED anything more than a .257 Roberts? Yesterday, at the range, a lady in her 60’s was shooting an M70 lightweight in .257 Roberts. She was at the bench next to mine. She was shooting a right-handed bolt-action from her right side, which meant she sat on the left side of her bench. I was shooting left-handedly from the right side of my bench. The muzzle of her rifle was only about five feet from my right ear (that is mostly deaf anyway).I, of course, had muffs on, plus a twisted-up piece of facial tissue in each ear. But every time she “let loose” her .257 I felt pain in my right ear! The point? You don’t go small for less noise! And noise quantity and quality contributes in mammoth proportions to a sense of recoil!

Me? I was mostly shooting my “new” .22LR at 50 and 100 yards, though I did let off four of my bear load from the 9.3 x 62. That was the 250gr Nosler AccuBonds at 2700+ fps. She then got up and left her bench to consort with her husband on the far side of her bench until I was finished! I recognized her rifle as I had owned one in 7-08 Remington. But the noise factor was on par with a .300 magnum.

One of the worst, in that regard, in actual deer hunting in a tight woods environment was my M70 in .30-06. It hurt my ears.

In shooting the moose, I never noticed the muzzle blast from my .340.

Here are the external ballistics of the 250gr Nosler Partition load used in moose hunting:

Bullet = 250gr Nosler Partition // Zero @ 280 yards

MV = 3000 fps/ KE = 4995 ft-lbs
100= 2807 fps/ KE = 4374 ft-lbs // +3.02″
200= 2623 fps/ KE = 3819 ft-lbs // +3.36″
300= 2446 fps/ KE = 3321 ft-lbs // -0.43″
400= 2276 fps/ KE = 2875 ft-lbs // -11.91″
500= 2112 fps/ KE = 2477 ft-lbs // -29.18″

The moose was shot at 165 yards. Velocity at impact = 2687 fps (more than .338 Win Mag factory muzzle velocity).
Energy at impact = 4006 ft-lbs. Trajectory at 165 yds = +3.78″

And the external ballistics if it were today using the 250gr AccuBond at the assumed same MV:

MV = 3000 fps/ KE = 4995 ft-lbs. Zero @ 300 yards.
100= 2841 fps/ KE = 4479 ft-lbs // +3.33″
200= 2688 fps/ KE = 4009 ft-lbs // +4.09″
300= 2539 fps/ KE = 3579 ft-lbs // +0.03″
400= 2396 fps/ KE = 3186 ft-lbs // -9.44″
500= 2257 fps/ KE = 2828 ft-lbs // -24.96″
600= 2123 fps/ KE = 2501 ft-lbs // -47.32″

Some notes:

a- My moose load was making at 400 yards what a very good load in a 22″, .358 Winchester might make at the muzzle.
b- The 250gr AccuBond load would make at 600 yards what the 250 N. Partition was making at 500. In other words, the Accubond would add 100 yards to effective ballistics.
c- The brass I was using, as mentioned, was reformed from Remington .375 H&H once-fired factory ammo. At our range I met a fellow practising for an African safari. He asked if I could use the empty cases. They were neatly packed back into their boxes of which there were five with twenty cases each. I accepted with gratitude, knowing they could be transformed into .340 Weatherby cartridges. So, I had 100 free cases for my .340. I ran them through my .340 die and fireformed them using 35 to 37 grains of SR4759 under the 200gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. MV was 2000 to 2100 fps, and quite acurate. I never bought addition brass. That lasted for as long as I owned the rifle — nine years and 1000 rounds. Prior to that, I used some .300 Weatherby cases I had on hand, but that amounted to only ten or so.

The Remington .375 H&H cases were very strong, and primer pockets never expanded. They were thrown out on principle after ten firings. The fire-forming loads would have made an excellent deer load.

Regarding the one factory 250gr load by Weatherby: My son, Phil, gave it to me to verify it’s ballistics. It was a gift from a Weatherby fan. As mentioned in my last, MV was about 2850 fps, and the brass was much lighter than the fire-formed Remington .375 H&H brass. That’s all the data I can share on that, except I know that factory Weatherby ammo for the .340 is VERY expensive! I was fortunate to be able to make my own “premium” loads that cost “pennies” by comparison.

A couple of years ago, EPPS Outdoor Store was mentioning, in their list of used rifles for big game, a .340 Wby. chambered in a Browning A-Bolt SS LH. I wondered if that had been mine that was sold twelve years earlier. Or, perhaps, someone reading my comments about that rifle had made a copy. Anyway, I didn’t get the opportunity to visit their store, which, out of curiosity I’d hoped to do before it was sold.

Lighter bullets will work, so will the heavier ones, but .338 bore, especially the magnums were made for the premium 250s which have exceptional ballistic potential and a high sectional density of .313, which ensure deep penetration on big and dangerous game. In stating the same obvious truth differently, the 250 premiums were made for the .338 magnums.

I’ve decided NOT to include a ballistic comparison with the .300 RUM due to the fact that it’s little more than the .300 Weatherby and, as explained recently, it’s also a “barrel burner” according to very good evidence. Comparison with the .338 Win Mag is easily done by recognising from the first ballistic table that .338 WM ballistics start at about the 200 yard mark for the .340.

The .340 Weatherby Magnum stands tall among the Mediums, and no apologies are needed if you own one, or intend to.

Next time, Hunting Optics.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .340 Weatherby Cartridge — Handloads – Part A

So you’ll know up front where I’m coming from, my experience in using the .340 Weatherby in both handloading and hunting is limited to one rifle — a rechambered .338 Winchester Magnum with the original 26-inch barrel. That experience was extensive in the development of handloads, but limited to the taking of one large game animal — a bull moose in Northern Ontario in 1998.  Nevertheless, I did shoot it about 1000 times in the development of loads and in practice.

(At nearly 63 years of age and 1600 kilometres from home in 1998, I shot my first moose on the opening day of the hunt. The rifle in the photo was not my .340 Wby., but my son’s .338 WM who took the pic.)

So what are my impressions from those experiences over a period of almost a decade?

First, some HISTORY: Since I don’t like a long, infinitely detailed history of how anything came to be, I’ll cut to the chase. I think anybody with any experience with rifle hunting should know by now that the .340 Weatherby cartridge is .338″ caliber and very simply the .300 Weatherby “necked up” from .308″ to .338″. That move on the part of Weatherby in 1962 was to compete with the .338 Winchester Magnum. But based on the .300 Weatherby it had a longer case than the .338 Winchester by 0.26″, or  3.60″ vs 3.34″ COL. Depending on who is doing the measuring, or what brand of cases are being used, the .338 Winchester holds about 87 grains water to the rim whereas the Weatherby holds up to 102 (some say 98). My measurement of the .340 was in using fire-formed .375 H&H Remington brass. So the difference in the capacity of each, in using water to the rim, was 15 grains water in favor of the Weatherby. That’s approximately 12 grains more useful powder space in the .340 Weatherby over the .338 Winchester, or an increase of 15%.

If the same powder is used in each, shooting the same bullet from equal length barrels at the same psi, the advantage of the Weatherby over the Winchester should be around 100 to 110 fps. as calculated by the 1/4 Barsness formula. In practice, however,  the actual  improvement turned out to be 173 fps. Since the same barrel was used for each cartridge, the .338 Win was shot prior to the rechambering job, and gave an absolute max of 2842 fps from a 250gr Hornady SP. Accuracy was good to excellent. I had second thoughts about having my gunsmith run a .340 reamer into it, but went ahead anyway since that was the original intent of the purchase of that firearm — a Browning SS, LH with synthetic stock in .338 Win Mag with a clip magazine. Absolute max velocity from the same barrel after rechambering to the .340 cartridge was 3015 fps. RL-19 proved best in the rifle as a .338 WM, and RL-22 was absolutely best in the same rifle as a .340 Weatherby. The RL-22 load under the 250gr Nosler Partition became my goto load for that rifle as a .340. That is the load that went hunting and harvested the bull moose. Over the period of ownership, the average MV (velocity corrected to muzzle velocity) was 2997 feet-per-second (fps) from that particular load which shot +/- MOA.

I fell in love with the .340 Weatherby that was producing about 5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle and 2475 ft-lbs at 500 yards. Plus, that was a very flat shooting and accurate load. It was, in fact, more or less a copy of what current day .338 Lapua Magnum shooters are so passionate about. With today’s improved ballistic coefficient (.575 B.C.) of the  250gr Nosler AccuBond you’d be looking at 2500 ft-lbs at 600 yards!

When it came time for me to consider the purchase of another medium, the .340 Wby had been long gone. I’d climbed that mountain. This story has been shared a few times already, so I’ll spare the details. But in looking for another .35 Whelen, I came home with a 9.3 x 62. No regrets, but I had the option of a .338 Remington Ultra Magnum (RUM) at the same time, place and cash amount. I chose the 9.3 for a number of reasons,  not the least being that the RUM was little more than a ballistic clone of the .340 Weatherby. I wanted something different as at the end of it’s stay, I had concluded the .340 to be best reserved for large game at potentially long range. In other words, the RUM would not be a rifle for toting while just out walking trails or in brushy conditions that involved 80% of my hunting expeditions. The 9.3 x 62, on the other hand, could do both — be very amenable to either short or long ranges.

But what is the forté of the .340 Weatherby — and by extension the .338 Lapua and .338 RUM?

(The two recovered bullets on the left and center were 250gr Nosler Partitions retrieved from the moose. They retained 70% of their weight. The first shot went through both lungs just behind shoulders and was lost in the bush beyond. The second immediate shot put the moose down and was found 3-inches from the first exit wound.Range was about 165 yards. The shorter middle bullet was fired from about 35 yards when the bull got back up in a very unsteady position. It was a shot to the pelvic region and found by the butcher somewhere in the front chest cavity. Penetration was around six feet. The bullet on the right is a 286gr NP for comparison from a bear shot by my 9.3 x 62. It fell to the ground on skinning, being just poking through the hide in front of the right hip. It was a frontal chest hit.)

My main purpose for the .340 was in moose hunting in N. Ontario, where it did quite easily take a bull of about 1000 to 1100 lbs at 165 yards. No “big deal” as it turned out. But, other purposes were fully satisfied in the process. What were they?

In summary, they included the following: handloading, accuracy, recoil, muzzle blast, followup shots and handling. Also, the question of how to acquire one at reasonable expense was answered to my satisfaction, as well as availability and costs of reloading components. I’ll delve into all that in PART – B.

HANDLOADS

Rifle: Browning A-Bolt SS in left-hand action with 60* bolt lift. Removable clip magazine attached to floor plate.
Capacity: 2 + 1.

Original chambering for a .338 Win Mag converted to a .340 Weatherby Magnum. A Browning A-Bolt clip magazine purchased for a .375 H&H to replace the .338 Win Mag clip. It worked perfectly for the .340 Weatherby Magnum cartridge.

Barrel: 26-inch stainless.

Cost of conversion: $75 for gunsmith work, plus $45 for replacement clip magazine = $120 plus taxes = $135.60. So I had a perfectly good new rifle chambered to .340 Weatherby Magnum at an all-in investment of about one- half the cost of a new .340 made by Weatherby. Plus, it didn’t weigh more than 8.75 lbs including sling, ammo and a 3 – 9 x 40mm scope. I’ll have more to say about recoil in Part – B, but suffice to say for now that the recoil at 54 ft-lbs never bothered me at the bench when I learned how to shoot it from that position. And that didn’t take more than a few rounds since I was accustomed to the recoil of Marlins in .45-70, a .458 Win Mag, .375 H&H’s as well as a couple of .338 Win Mags — that’s an extent of around 40 ft-lbs to 70 ft-lbs of free recoil. The .340 was little more than midway in that range. By the way, my current 9.3 x 62 in about the same as the .340 in felt recoil employing a max load of RL-17 behind the 286gr Nosler Partition. Ready for action the .340 was about one pound heavier than my 9.3 x 62, but the 9.3 seems faster in recoil.

The following is a list of six handloads that gave good to excellent performance overall:

1. 250gr Hornady SP / 85.5 grains H4831 / 2795 fps / 0.875″ accuracy / Fed. 215 primer / Rem .375 H&H brass (fire-formed).
2. 250gr Hornady SP / 89.5 grains RL-22 / 2975 fps / 1.25″ accuracy / Fed. 215 primer / Rem .375 H&H brass (fire-formed).
3. 250gr Nosler Part. /90.5 grains RL-22/ 3000 fps / 1.25″ accuracy / Fed. 215 primer / Rem .375 H&H brass (fire-formed). This was my goto hunting load for moose.
4. 225gr Hornady SP / 86 grains RL-19 / 2950 fps / 1.375″ accuracy /Fed 215 primer / Rem .375 H&H brass (fire-formed).
5. 225gr Hornady SP /87 grains H4831 / 2890 fos / 1.437″ accuracy / Fed 215 primer / Rem .375 H&H brass (fire-formed).
6. 250gr Hornady SP /87 grains AA3100 / 2790 fps / 0.750″ @ 300 yards (the most accurate load every fired in that rifle) / Fed 215 primer / Rem .375 H*H brass (fire-formed).

Notes:
A – The average accuracy from the above loads, excluding No. 6, is 1.26″ for three-shot groups at 100 yards.
B – The best overall powder for hunting loads was RL-22 by at least 100 fps for all bullets, and no load was a poor performer using RL-22. There were other bullets tried that are not listed including 200s and a couple more 250s.
C – 218 shots were fired from the rifle as a .338 Win Mag before it was modified to a .340 Weatherby, after which approximately an additional 750 were fired as a .340 Wby. The rifle was owned from 1994 to 2003, a period of nine years and around 1000 rounds fired of which only one was a 250gr factory product from Weatherby at about 2850 fps. At the time their specs claimed 2860 fps for the 250 NP load manufactured by Norma of Sweden. In later years, they advertise that load making 2940 fps from a 26″ Weatherby barrel. How did it come about that I fired a single .340 Wby. factory round? That story is too long for repeating here but I’ll get to it in Part – B.

(The .340 Weatherby Magnum)

Next time around, I’ll focus on what I believe are it’s strengths and some weaknesses. Also, some possible candidates for conversion from a .338 WM to a .340 Weatherby. And, was it worth it? Would I do it again? In addition, a few ballistic tables will be presented in comparison to a .300 RUM and a .338 Winchester Magnum to help put matters into perspective.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

RIFLES for Bear Defence — Second Edition

(A wilderness trail in the Haliburton Highlands. That’s a .458 Winchester Magnum in my right hand. October 2007)

Writing a blog is somewhat different than writing a book or manual on the same subject. When I initially felt an urge to write on this theme, I thought it would take two parts, but I tried to cram it into one. That didn’t work very well, for me at least. You will understand, I think, that a blog or short article on a theme is relatively brief in comparison to a book of several chapters and hundreds of pages on the same subject matter. Also, in writing a book there may be a deadline for completion that might be self imposed or by a publisher. The time frame could be a full year or more. In sharp contrast to that, the writing of a short article of less than 2500 words within a week or so requires some cramming of thought and cramping of space. Especially is that true if 85% to 90% of your life is already preoccupied by other activities and responsibilities. A second edition, or more, of a book usually doesn’t appear within four or five years at least, depending on sales. A new edition will usually include improvements, additions and updates. A second edition of a blog, however, is a rarity, but sometimes a necessity. Hence this edition of my last on Rifles for Bear Defence is to permit some improvements and additions. Perhaps I should be writing a short book. Someday, maybe, I’ll attempt one on bear hunting… that’s a “maybe”, but don’t hold me to it.

My blogs require about four hours of my time in writing approximately 2000 to 2500 words. During that time frame each paragraph is reviewed. When completed, the whole article is reviewed for spelling and grammar. Then photos are added. This process takes about six hours in total. The day after publication it is reviewed as it would appear on your computer or any other device. I may make further changes. After several days, up to a week, I may add a new paragraph or other changes for clarification, so you may want to read it again after a week goes by from the original date of publication that appears on the header and the calendar to the top right of the article.

So, all that to say that I’m not always content with the contents as it initially appears, and there is often more that needs to be added, especially if it is less than a series of articles on a particular theme.

(Big bears aren’t reserved to remote wilderness areas. This 400 pounder was visiting my bait site in 2015 on private property. They rarely show up during daylight hours. But they are in the neighborhood, so vigilance is called for.)

Therefore, this is a second edition (or Part Two) on the theme of Rifles for Bear Defence, or really, “Rifles and other firearms for killing a bear, any bear” under any and all circumstances.

Any and all circumstances would include at least the following list: (I like to organize my thoughts in lists, as otherwise there is the probability of too much repetition, and the possibility of someone missing a significant point or more.)

1 – Hunting solo.
2 – Hunting with an outfitter or professional guide.
3 – Hunting solo in unfamiliar territory.
4 – Hunting very rugged country solo.
5 – Hunting very rugged country with a partner.
6 – Day hunting.
7 – Camp hunting solo.
8 – Camp hunting with a partner or partners.
9 – Hunting big game other than bears.
10- Hunting bear over bait with an outfitter.
11- Hunting bear over bait in DIY.
12- Fishing in bear country solo.
13- Hiking in bear country solo.
14- Camping in bear country solo or with family.
15- Camping in bear country with friends.
16- Unexpected conditions while hunting, hiking, fishing or camping.

All of the above have similarities, but there are also apparent differences in circumstances, and the potential for drastic changes from what was planned for if a bad-tempered, mature bear suddenly appears when unexpected “out of nowhere”! And yes, even though uncommon, the seemingly out-of-the-ordinary event takes place far more frequently than believed.

I go prepared for that — NOT the ordinary!

In the previous article, I gave my personal preferences for such a potential event. That was the beginning, not the end of the matter, as those who have mastered a bolt rifle or handgun of apt force are just as well prepared in my view.

(A 286gr Nosler Partition that didn’t fully penetrate from a frontal shot. It did, however, penetrate from frontal chest to just in front of the right hip. It fell out on skinning and retained 71% of original weight at 211 grains.)

However, the bullet chosen is still of prime consideration as well as where it is placed under great stress! Put yourself in one, or more, of the sixteen conditions above and then ask yourself, “What weapon do I now own, and master, that I would put my life on the line with in 100% confidence that it would be the ultimate in self-protection against an aggressive bear intent on killing me, from fifteen feet (5 yards or meters)?” Perhaps 3 yards is more realistic!

There’s an article in ………. on killing a bear bent on mayhem. It begins with the author killing a good size sow bear charging from a few feet in near darkness. It ended with a dead bear killed by a 12ga slug in the right place… and a very shaken shooter.

So, to emphasise again:

It’s the bullet. Not the bullet in a box, or in a cartridge, or in a cartridge in a magazine or chamber, but the bullet in motion at impact.

a) It’s construction must be suitable for penetration of the skull from not only a side shot but also a frontal one at near muzzle velocity. That’s from a shotgun slug, a pistol or a rifle. Get reliable information from testing bullets, from others whom you trust or first hand experience. ANY bullet through the lungs will not stop a bear unless it’s a Big Bore (40-cal +) with a big mushroom or a 50%+ meplat (flat-point). A heart shot will NOT stop a bear either. I’ve seen a bear travel full speed for at least 20 yards with no heart left — heart exploded, just a piece of jelly! But I have seen bears stopped in their tracks from heavyweight, flat point .458″ at adequate impact velocity with shots to lungs and/or heart, without a CNS hit. The difference, for example, between the effect from a .458-cal and a .35-cal is dramatic, to give an objective impression.

As told in my last article, the bear killed using my .35 Whelen was hit by a 200gr X-Bullet leaving the muzzle at 2800 fps. Impact should have been about 2533 fps/2849 ft-lbs if Barnes’ Manual is correct. The angle was from middle rib cage on right side to offside shoulder — complete penetration leaving a gaping wound of over an inch through shoulder bone. The medium bear still went ten yards. Another bear was shot at the same location (different season) using a Marlin in .45-70 (different scenario than the one mentioned in the last blog). This time the bullet was a 405gr Remington leaving the muzzle at 2110 fps/4003 ft-lbs. Impact was 1850 fps/3077 ft-lbs. The angle was a quartering going-away hit that impacted the short ribs of the left side and made exit just behind the right shoulder. There was no CNS hit, but the bear (a bit larger that the one mentioned above) was literally flattened on the spot. Never even wiggled! Distance from rifles to impact was identical in each case since I was using the same bait and blind location — 98 yards as measured several years later by my laser range finder. Prior to measurement, I always said it was “100 yards” — that being my impression. Nonetheless, the point is valid in mentioning that a .45-cal made a rather substantial improvement in effect over the .35-cal, though each got the job done. But, as a “stopping” rifle for protection in unknown circumstances, I’d choose a .458″ bullet of proper construction over a .358″ bullet of proper construction in a “have-to-right-now” situation where I couldn’t be perfect in the placement of the bullet.

(Multiple bears have been taken at this favorite location, including those mentioned, by the .35 Whelen and a .45-70. Bears do make a mess — their table manners need some improving, don’t you think?)

b) It’s velocity: Velocity matters. Whether we’re discussing kinetic energy or momentum, or a combination of both, velocity matters. Without velocity, there is neither energy nor force. The more velocity, the greater of each. That’s velocity at impact. But impact velocity is determined by muzzle velocity and a form factor (shape), which is called ballistic coefficient (B.C.). And B.C. is determined in part by sectional density (S.D.) SD is an expression of the ratio of bullet weight (mass) to bullet diameter (caliber). So all of it is important to impact velocity and penetration.

c) It’s penetration ability: Penetration of skull to destroy brain tissue, or of heart and/or lungs to disrupt oxygen to the brain is what kills. An animal (or human) may be temporarily or permanently parallized by injury to the brain or spine. But they may NOT be dead! Have you ever walked up to a downed animal, thinking it was dead, only to have it jump up in front of you and take off in the other direction? Well then, you know what I’m talking about! But what if it comes for you instead of running or bounding in the opposite direction?

But full penetration isn’t necessary on a bear IF you use a large bore that creates a large cavity going in. I’ve killed several with no exit, but the damage internally was immense. On the other hand, I’ve also killed several, with an exit wound, that ran for quite a few yards. That first bear killed by a 400gr Speer from a Marlin in .45-70 didn’t have an exit wound, but there was massive… and I mean really monumental blood loss from the 2.5″ entrance wound that literally saturated the complete right side of the trophy bear from neck to rump. That bullet came out with the innards in the darkness of night and was never found, but the insurance bullet was retrieved in the offside armpit and retained 90.5% of unfired weight. At it’s widest part it measures 1.068″.

And I’m obliged to a friend, Dan, for a report in using a 250gr CEB from his .458 WM in taking a trophy black bear. It worked very well. So, some of the “rules” regarding heavy for caliber bullets have apparently changed, though the ballistic coefficient would be rather poor comparatively speaking. Don’t use them for long range shooting as their much needed velocity will dissipate rather quickly. Barnes makes a 250gr TSX in .458 for the Marlin in .45-70, but while it can be started rather fast from a Ruger No.1 in .45-70, at over 2800 fps, with a B.C. of only .136 it will loose velocity like a satellite falling from the sky with a parachute deployed!

What does it take to kill a bear? Not much. A record book grizzly was killed in Alberta several years ago by a single shot from a .22LR. But it was placed expertly to the side of the head where it penetrated the brain. A young native girl accomplished that feat, that she was not planning on while hunting with her younger brother for grouse. She saw the bear coming down the trail they were on and wisely sat up high on the side, waiting for the bear to pass so as not to attract it’s attention. When it was opposite them, she shot it in the ear hole or just above it. A carefully placed 40gr, .22 RF will penetrate soft tissue sufficiently to reach the brain. My oldest son has killed numerous wart hog in Africa using a single-shot .22LR in the same manner. But, who in their right mind would recommend that for personal protection in a remote wilderness, alone, being surprised by a bear at spittin’ range?

(Credit:USFWS)

Numerous times it has been made an emphasis — for dangerous game (and ANY bear over a hundred pounds is potentially dangerous) shoot the biggest caliber you can handle well, without intimidation of recoil, and you will be best served. I agree. Of course, some laws must be observed in some places whether they make sense or not. For example, legally we can use any centerfire (even a .22 Hornet?) for hunting big game here in Ontario. But, I can’t use one of more than 400 ft-lbs if hunting small game during a big game season without a license for the same. But I can use a .458 Win Mag for hunting ground hog in most areas where they may be hunted (and now, where they exist!)! So not ALL laws make much sense even though for wisdom’s sake, we must observe them.

So, in summary:

Be safe!
Play by the rules!
Be smart!
Don’t assume too much!
Give credit where it is due!
You or I didn’t make the creature or ourselves. Me? I give credit to God for any innate wisdom, courage, strength and ability that He in grace permitted me to have… and for His protection. It could have been much different.
(Isaiah chp. 40, verses 21 through 31 — to be read in a modern version, not in ancient English).

’til the next,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL