Bear Defence and Offence — Part One

This is not an uncommon topic on various outdoor, hunting and survival forums. It potentially involves an infinite amount of details, such as: outdoor recreation, various types of employment in remote rural, agricultural, forested, and semi-wilderness and wilderness areas. So any discussion of success in hunting and/or survival in tough, remote areas, must take into account the potential or real threats involved. To do this in a single article would amount to taking on an impossible mission. Even several blogs by a well informed author would still leave a significant amount of questions unanswered.

Nevertheless, I will set out on this mission, knowing full well that I may (or may not) have more than average knowledge, with the intent of covering the basics that may be too much for some readers, and not enough for others. At the moment, I can’t guarantee how many blogs of a reasonable length this may take, but there will be several.

(Would you expect to see a black bear here? It’s private property that borders a Provincial Park. In bygone days it was farmed. A professor of wildlife biology was investigating this property as a potential pasture for forty head of cattle when he was chased by a black bear! It was a good thing he was in good shape because by the time he made it to the home on the property he nearly collapsed! I hunted there for six seasons and took four bears. My trail cam for my last hunt in 2015 recorded at least eleven distinct bears were hitting my bait! Left click on pics for enlargement.)

However, two main divisions: Bear defence and offence will be in view. Let me qualify: By Bear Defence, I’m thinking recreational activities in areas where bears live, as well as the employment of those whose work involves potential bear encounters. Of course, that could also include those who are hunting any game or varmints in those areas, as well as bear hunters themselves.

The second main division, Bear Offence, will specifically concern hunters whose objective is to tag a bear under license, or others officially employed to deal with troublesome and/or dangerous bears.

Under both sections, the main theme will be the firearms employed for both defensive and offensive purposes in personal bear encounters.

Yet to suggest, or even hint, that any one individual has all possible knowledge in these matters is pure fiction. And I include government officials and wildlife managers in particular. Therefore, let it be said up-front that no two bear encounters — whether engaged in recreational or employment activities, or in hunting bear — are identical. Let’s keep that in mind — yes, there may well be similarities, but similar is NOT identical! Added to that is the fact that comparatively few are reported. I know of at least one serious encounter involving a company employed by the Ontario Government that lost one man to a bear attack while clearing brush in a remote area. A fellow employee reported that to me as a first-hand account. And they had to have special permits to carry a firearm on their persons. That is one that didn’t make the headlines or TV casts. How many scrapes have others had that they didn’t care to talk openly about? I don’t know, do you?

BEAR DEFENCE

In 1960 – 1961, I was engaged in learning the french language in Quebec from a course issued from Laval University. To get a break from the intensity (and boredom) of language study, I had a former classmate from college days who lived just down the street from where we — my wife and three small kids — were apartment dwelling in Sherbrooke, Que. Despite having not seen each other for a number of years after graduation, we managed somehow to find one other while living only about 1/4 mile apart. He was a high school teacher as well as engaged in the sports of the high school as a coach. (He and I both played hockey at our college — he was a fantastic player.) He also was an enthusiastic chess player. So was I. So, as a break from our more “bookish” activities, every time we got together at our place or his, we engaged in combat over a chess board.

As a hint to our personality types, he always played right-wing forward (offence) in hockey, and I played mostly right defence. In chess, he went immediately on the offensive, which put me on the defensive. He won six of six matches, but he always used the same strategy in starting the game by moving the king and queen inside “the Castle” before going on the offensive. In studying his strategy, I played against myself (which you can do in some board games like chess) and developed a foolproof method in both defence and offence. The next ten matches were +10 in my favor.

The lesson is obvious: before going on the offensive, a solid defence is mandatory whether in team sports, military strategy, chess or bear encounters! In observing the first two games of the Playoffs between the Boston Bruins and the Toronto Maple Leafs, it’s quite obvious that both teams are well equipped for offensive hockey — both can score — but going into this series, by far and away, Boston had/has the better defence, and that is reflected in the results of the first two games in Boston. Boston is up +2 and Toronto -2, in a series of the best of seven.

In “the bush” where bears dwell, they have the advantage in both defence and offence, should they choose to use it. Why? Because of their keen senses, awareness, strategy and weapons. And they “own” their territory. Humans are considered intruders. Every other animal is a subject. They are at the top of “the food chain”. Unless any human goes into their territory with a defensive mindset, they might wish they had if encountered by a dominant male (boar) or a defensive female (sow) with cubs!

Humans must therefore have a defensive strategy, if they are not hunting bears, because they are largely unfamiliar with the details of the terrain, unaware of a bear’s intentions in an “accidental” encounter, and mostly in a daze as to how a bear might react when confronted by a two-legged creature that stands on its hind legs. We are here speaking of remote areas where bears make a living and rarely, if ever, have had interaction with humans — NOT where bears live in and around human activities on a regular basis! In such cases, and there are many, bears will usually avoid humans unless they become overly familiar with them, and are rarely threatened. I’m aware, for instance, that in some of our more southerly rural areas, as well as the suburbs of some more northern towns and even cities, that bears are regularly seen on private properties. A friend of mine, and former hunting buddy, has had at least one bear show up in his shop, nosing around in his garbage, when his back was turned doing fine carpentry! And, his guns were locked in a far corner of his shop! The bear was unimpressed by his presence, and only left the premises when satisfied there were no “goodies” in the trash can!

Defensive strategy starts with comprehension of bear facts through educating oneself. Bears are individualistic and we must learn their body language. And that doesn’t imply from Internet chatter, though some of it might be helpful. I know, for instance, of one fellow hunter and farmer from Western Canada — have had correspondence with him — who poo – poos any notion that more is needed to kill a bear than a .24 to .30 caliber. And literally hundreds (according to his claim) have been killed at long range using relatively light bullets at warp speeds! And, of course, he is right in his situation! But his circumstance doesn’t represent what I’m referring to in our current theme. Because one can “pick off” a potentially troublesome 150 lb to 250 lb bear at long range, when the bear is grazing like sheep or cattle, is one thing only! It’s not the norm! It may be for the land owner, but not for the hiker in remote, largely unknown territory who may be surprised by an aggressive bruin, black or brown!

(Watch for bear signs and activity when hiking or hunting. These claw marks were made by a large bear!)

(This track was made on a familiar remote trail. I was toting my Ruger 96/44 lever action in .44 Rem Mag — a good defensive weapon.)

In Canada we’re not allowed to carry handguns for either hunting or self-protection. There is one exception, being that if it can be demonstrated that a particular employment might require it. In the United States of America, it is legal in most scenarios to carry one for personal protection and/or for hunting purposes.

So, what would I recommend and/or choose for myself. Those are two distinct issues due to the fact that I can’t just walk around even with a shotgun in a remote area (or anywhere) unless I’m in possession of a hunting license for which a shotgun might be legal in both season and area, all the time observing all other regulations. I could protect myself using it against a bear that was intent on attacking me, but I might have to explain my actions before a judge if I didn’t have a bear license, AND I wasn’t legal in every other way, such as open season and jurisdiction.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s pretend that I’m legally hunting whitetails in a habitat that also supports a number of bears — in my case that would be blacks. Since those seasons overlap, it would be a wise pro-active strategy to also have a bear license in my wallet. Why? Cheap insurance. I may not want to even shoot a bear, but I may have to. My experience over decades is that I’ve often hunted solo, and by times in a remote area that I was still becoming familiar with. Also, on many occasions, I’ve hunted with a partner in deer, moose and bear hunts. Occasionally, with more than one partner, but rarely were we close enough in distance that if one had a bad bear encounter, the others were too scattered to provide immediate support. I’ve reported this previously: A number of years ago a CBC radio news report told of a bear attack in Quebec wherein a mature hunter was killed. The report was sparse in detail, but two sons were in the area, heard their father’s screams, but couldn’t get to him in time to save his life. There are no grizzlies in Quebec! What they were hunting was not reported, so speculation doesn’t fill in any blanks.

The point is just this: Be pro-active. Think ahead. Even IF you are a veteran hunter or hiker, and have never had such an encounter, or you recall one in which the bruin took off in the opposite direction, never to have been seen again, your next journey into THAT wilderness could be your last! Really? Yes. It’s overconfident people who become careless! They believe a serious car accident could never happen to them! They might also believe they could handle any bear encounter by blowing a whistle, clapping their hands, yelling, unleashing bear spray (which they’ve never practised with!), not even knowing it might not reach the bear’s nose or eyes due to wind in THEIR face! Some of MY family have camped in Algonquin Park without a thought of a bear or moose attack! Yes, moose! Knowing full well that in Algonquin, some campers have been dragged out of their tents by bears, I’ve had to address the issue with them. Knowing also, that campers have been chased by both bull and cow moose. One young man I met at our range told me of his experience camping in Algonquin. He barely escaped a big bull by paddling a fast as he could in his canoe with the bull moose plunging into the lake and swimming as fast as it could in chasing him! He said it was the scariest experience in his short life of 21 years! What if that had been a big black bear?

In hunting lessons, we are told to play over in our minds various scenarios before we actually hunt a particular species of big game. That’s pure wisdom. It’s also pure wisdom to play the game of “What if?” BEFORE it becomes “What do I do now?”

RECOMMENDATIONS: When deer or wolf hunting, I carry a shotgun or rifle that is also adequate for bear in season. In a moose hunt, I’ll be sufficiently armed for moose, therefore for bear as well. My choices will be upcoming.

1. Be pro-active
2. Be aware and alert
3. Be legal – carry an adequate handgun, shotgun or rifle (details later). And, oh yeah, pepper spray if you’ve practised with it, and know it’s limitations.
4. Practice with any weapon until it becomes a part of your psyche
5. Watch for signs of bear activity, use caution and try to avoid an unwanted encounter by turning back or choosing another path or route. On the other hand, all that may result in a meeting with Mr. Bruin anyway. What then?

Yeah, I know, in our nanny state we’re not allowed to carry lethal force for self protection — unless we’re hunting! Even then, the government watchdogs can’t smile on you if you legally purchase a bear tag with the purpose of self protection during bear season! “You can’t do THAT because the purpose of a bear license is NOT for self defence but ONLY offensive purposes!!!”, they might scream at you! At the very least, they could get heartburn and lose a night’s sleep! “Oh Canada, our home and native land…” the True NORTH strong and Free…”! “FREE”? You gotta be kidding! In checking the price of leasing cars in Canada vs the USA, hear this: For what I’m paying for leasing a KIA SOUL here in Ontario, I could OWN a Cadillac SUV in the States! AND! That’s not all… the cost of gas is 2x that of the USA on average! And the Canadian Government (still broke) loves to tell us how lucky we are to live in Canada vs the USA with all their troubles… I need to go eat some Tums lest I end up with heartburn that will keep me awake at nights!

Till the next

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Advertisements

A Big Bore’s BIG BORE — Part 2

Have you read Part 1? OK, I take it you have, so I’ll move on from there.

We finally got a decent day, weather wise,  to go to the range for some tests of the Rem AccuTip 385s. The pic below reveals results at 50 yards.  The first shot was too high and missed the target. I cranked it down on the scope and the second hit near the pin in the upper right-hand corner. I then moved the crosshairs to about two inches south of that hoping for a +2″ over dead center. The next shot is the one to the right of center. More adjustments. Third shot is high and left of center. More adjustments. The final three on target are clustered just over dead center in a 1-inch spread. Not bad considering that it was still a bitter cold day, and I had just arrived from the shop where the gun was purchased and was ill prepared for a proper setup for precise shooting. In other words, I didn’t have my usual equipment on board for a suitable and stable rest for bench shooting.  Also the scope was an old one that had taken a beating on some very high powered rifles, so the parallax was not reliable. After the fact, I changed scopes to a spare World Class Tasco, and will have to re-sight the rifled tube.  How that works out… if not I’ll have to purchase a new scope. In any case, the Remingtons look good enough for a fall deer or bear hunt — perhaps both.

(Left click on pic to enlarge it. To return to text, click on return arrow. Someone was using my target the day before I got to use it. I left it up the first day to the range but didn’t fire a shot that day.)

I’ve switched barrels to the shorter of the two smooth bores that will, hopefully, be sighted for turkey next week. For that I’ll be using the XX Full Choke.

The reason it was brought directly from the dealer to the range was that this Mossberg had a serious fault coming from the manufacturer. At least, that is assumed. Let me explain before you jump to conclusions about all Mossberg shotguns:

I put that shotgun on “hold” at the gun shop early in 2018 by a deposit of $100 with the agreement of full payment and pickup by mid-March… which I did. But it was never loaded nor fired until this week due to very cold conditions. The rifled barrel was installed before taking it home from the shop. And I put a scope on the cantilever — the Burris 2 – 7 x 35. In the meanwhile I purchased the Remington Sabot slugs locally. On Tuesday of this week (April 10, 2018) I went to our range with the purpose of sighting-in the rifled barrel but the action lifter would only go down to about midway of the cartridge. So, without firing a shot I packed up and came home. Next morning (Wednesday) I was at the shop before the manager arrived. 1/2 hr. later the doors were opened and I was the first inside. 1 and 1/2 hours later the manager met with me and explained that somehow the charging/extracting rails had been switched — that is the left one was on the right and the right one on the left. Once the problem was discovered it didn’t take the smith long to present it to me in a normal condition.  Who done it? …er “did” it. A factory error or someone else? It doesn’t really matter now as my frustration and angst was cared for within 24 hrs.

In testing and sighting it worked flawlessly.

Why a 12 gauge? That was answered in Part 1, but for the remainder of this blog I’ll try to put this matter in perspective.

I’ve previously made the observation that a 12 gauge shotgun is — in my view — the most versatile of firearms. Why? There is no other small arms “weapon”, or gun, that has such a variety of factory-made cartridges for anything from elephant to rats! And that’s not a hollow boast! Consider this: one company makes a 12ga “slug” of .73-inch, with a weight of 600 grains at a claimed MV of 1890 feet-per-second (fps)!! That’s 4758 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle! Or to put it in a different light: That’s a TKO of 118! Impressed? No? well, the .458 Lott has a TKO of only 75!! And that .73-inch/600-grain is hardened alloy lead intended for the likes of eles! I’m sure it would work well enough IF the shooter doesn’t expire before the elephant. Calculated recoil is in the realm of the Lott, which some seem to think is bearable, but not every shooter.

Back to earth, where most of us dwell, there are more modest loads in slug or sabot form that will easily handle big bears, moose, elk, and the like, in addition to Bambi and hogs. At the usual ranges, that is,  not in extreme shooting that appears to be current among those who fantasize more than they hunt.

If my firearms were reduced to one, I could quite easily get along — as far as hunting is concerned — with a 12 gauge of modern manufacture with a 3-inch chamber. With a single barrel, it would be a smooth bore with a variety of chokes from XX Full to IC. But I would prefer a switch barrel version that included a rifled barrel. I’d also want to mount a sturdy scope of about 2 – 7 x 32.

My Mossberg has a 3.5″ chamber, but I will never use 3.5″ shells — they’re not needed. Especially is that so in consideration of the fact that fully loaded for turkey, my Mossberg only weighs 6.8 lbs. with the 22″ smooth bore installed. A 3.5″ turkey load would NOT be pleasant to shoot! I was told by one of the owners of the shop, who is a firearms instructor, that such a load could dislocate your shoulder — just what I don’t need! The load chosen for turkey is a Federal 2 and 3/4-inch No.5 mag load at 1315 fps. If that can’t kill a turkey (head shot) at 40 yards, then that will be my last turkey hunt! Especially when fired through a XX Full choke.

Sight-in next week, and hunt starts the 24th of this month. Bear hunt opens May 1st.

Who says life has to be dull when you’re over 80!
(I took this during a fall bear hunt on private property. Where the rifle is pointing is a blind on the far side for turkey hunting in the spring. Distance is 135 yards. Some properties are hunted for deer, bear and turkey — like this one.)

Till the next… in about two weeks.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

A Big Bore’s BIG BORE — Part 1

No, I’m not thinking of a 700 H&H, nor even a 600 Overkill.  It even shoots larger diameter bullets than that! Yup, all the way to .731″! Ahh, gee… you’ve guessed it. We call them slug guns that are about as common as .30-06s.

Recently, I read an article, or part thereof, by a poster on a forum who was quoting someone of bygone days, to this effect that a rifled slug gun was really a large-bore rifle since it had a rifled barrel.  A shotgun was a smooth bore that shot pellets! Well, that made some sense at least.

So, having just invested in a combo package pump Mossberg 535, 12-gauge, with a rifled 24″ barrel, including cantilever for a scope, as well as two other smooth bores — one 28″ and the other 22″, including all the chokes needed for anything from turkey to pigeons, I thought it might be an interesting project to present a philosophical piece on the largest common BIG BORE of all —  a 12 gauge rifled slug gun. But then, a 12 ga. smooth bore is no slouch either! I’ve used the 12 ga. Magnum Challenger slugs (2 – 3/4″) out of  my old bolt-action Mossberg smooth bore, and believe me they’ll put a real hurt on anything they encounter. They are accurate, 1-1/8 oz DGS slugs out of Italy, leaving the muzzle at 1610 fps as loaded by Challenge from Quebec. All this we’ll explore in a philosophical – practical manner. Which is best, the .73″ Foster type, Brennekes from smooth bores, or sabot slugs (bullets) from rifled barrels?

(My new acquisition — a Mossberg 535 with the 24″ rifled barrel installed. The scope is a 2 – 7 x 32mm Burris Fullfield II. Left click on photo to enlarge.)

So far (Part 1) this will be theoretical and philosophical. Part 2 will come after the weather warms enough to do some shooting and testing of sabot slugs, plus, perhaps, the Challengers which have worked very well in my former smooth bore. Those would be tried in the 22″ smooth bore barrel. First off, however, I want to sight the rifled barrel (24″) with some Remington AccuTips (385gr). After significant research, those Remingtons (2-3/4″) have been acclaimed as the most accurate from the Mossberg; perhaps rifle accuracy to 200 yards — that claim will be verified one way or the other. How will I evaluate this matter?

First: sight-in at 50, then 100 yards.
Second: determine accuracy at 100.
Third: accuracy at 200.
Fourth: chronograph muzzle velocity.
Fifth (and last): fire a FEW in practice if all else is good. A FEW because they will cost around $5 per shot!!

Then I’ll have to invest in more for the deer season… and perhaps for a wolf or bear.

In the meanwhile barrels will be switched to one of the smooth bores for a turkey and maybe a grouse or two.

That’s the plan, if the LORD is willing. And that’s not just a saying like “wishing on a star”.

PHILOSOPHICAL thinking: Whether we are conscious of it or not, there is a lot of philosophical thinking in all our endeavours. Philosophy is a process of reasoning whereby we (mature adults – young or old) ask questions like: “Why am I here?”, “What makes me happy?”, and “How can I achieve that?”, AND, “What’s next, or left?”

As to myself, I discovered early in life that I loved adventure, the outdoors, guns, shooting and hunting… or hunting and shooting, as I can’t really say which of those came first; it seemed (in retrospect) that they belonged together. During the Second World War, I played “war” against “the enemy” with toy guns. A little later (after The War), my first real gun was a pump BB rifle that I shot tin cans with and plucked apples of the tree. Later still, my first rifle that contained a cartridge with powder and bullet was a single-shot 22 LR. I did some damage on real critters with that one. After college and employment came some serious big and small game hunting for which more than a .22 LR single-shot was called for. Being newly married, and employed by several country churches as a pastor (where I had to own and pay for a used car that covered a parish of 3000 sq – km each week), I could ill afford a BG rifle — so I borrowed from friends. After a couple of years, my wife agreed that I should invest in a 12ga shotgun as it was more versatile than a big game rifle, and cost much less. That was my introduction to shotguns. It turned out to be a splendid acquisition for birds but very poor for deer as it had a fixed full choke that shot Foster slugs at very odd angles that could not even be “patterned”! And hunting laws in New Brunswick, at the time, didn’t permit buckshot!

Fast forward: Somewhere around thirty years ago I purchased a “coach gun” — you know, a double with 3″ chambers that weighed about 5-1/2 lbs! After about a dozen rounds, or so, it went down the road! Are you guessing why? Well, I’d been shooting a LOT of heavy hitters, including a .458 Win Mag, and that “thing” (the coach gun) was the “winner” in felt recoil! That was followed by my last 12ga (that I’ve briefly written about here), a Mossberg bolt-action with the “Poly Choke”, that proved very accurate shooting those Challenger Magnums (1 – 1/8 oz @ 1620 fps chronographed) with the choke set at IC. It was also a good bird gun. But, alas, it began to show its age and obsolescence. So we said good-bye without regrets… That brings us to this moment.

I wanted a modern shotgun in 12-gauge that could easily fulfill the expectations I had for my original 12ga bolt-action Mossberg 60 yrs ago! A do-it-all that could be used as a rifle for big game and/or a smooth bore for varmints, rabbits and birds — the most useful of all firearms. That’s gun philosophy with a practical twist.

My life’s philosophy is just like your’s: I want to be happy, and adventure, the outdoors, hunting and shooting helps fulfill that. But it’s not the “be-all” and “end-all” of that purpose. My personal relationship with God through Jesus is number one, and he makes everything else meaningful and fulfilling — including hunting and shooting!

Why a shotgun for deer or bear instead of a centerfire rifle? Good question.

Some places ONLY allow a shotgun (as a firearm) for deer — you, of course, already knew that. And in wooded/brushy conditions where range is limited to 150 yards or less, a shotgun — with today’s ammo — is just as effective as any rifle on deer, bear, hogs, etc.

Here’s a look at the ballistics of those 12ga Remington AccuTip 385s at 1850 fps muzzle velocity:
MV … = 1850fps/ 2925KE/ 126TE/ -1.6″ traj.
25 yds = 1727fps/ 2549KE/ 110TE/ +0.43″
50 yds = 1611fps/ 2219KE/ 95TE/ +1.71″
75 yds = 1503fps/ 1930KE/ 83TE/ +2.16″
100 yds= 1402fps/ 1679KE/ 72TE/ +1.64″
125 yds= 1309fps/ 1465KE/ 63TE/ +0.01″
150 yds= 1228fps/ 1288KE/ 55TE/ -2.88″
175 yds= 1157fps/ 1144KE/ 49TE/ -7.22″
200 yds= 1099fps/ 1032KE/ 44TE/ -13.18″

Recoil? About 26 – 27 ft-lbs, calculated. The real weight on a scale (empty), with scope = 8.3 lbs. With 4 Remindton 385grn AccuTips = 8.7 lbs.

TE = Terminal Effect (Includes momentum, sectional density, cross-sectional area, and kinetic energy at impact)
KE = Kinetic Energy

As an example of comparison: a .300 Win Mag firing a 180gr at 3100 fps has a TE of 77 at the MUZZLE! This sabot slug from Remington has a TE of 83 at 75 YARDS! That Remington slug (bullet) is .58-caliber with a bonded lead core to a copper jacket.

Another example might be: a .30-30 shooting a 150gr at 2300 fps MV has a TE at 100 yards of 22 (1315ft-lbs). The Rem. 385gr sabot bullet has twice that at 200 yards!

(Is this a BIG BORE, or what?)

Till the next… PART 2

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

An interesting and educational site: http://www.worldofthebible.com

A Magnum’s MAGNUM — the .340 Weatherby

“A Magnum’s MAGNUM”. If I recall correctly, I think it was Bob Hagel who coined that phrase in regard to the .340 Weatherby Mag. If not his absolute favorite, it surely came within second or third place.

(My Browning A-Bolt SS (LH) rechambered from .338 WM to .340 Weatherby)

I’ve owned a total of one, but that experience which lasted for about a decade was  memorable. It never just sat coldly in a safe or gun locker, being ignored for much of the time, but was actively engaged in sending experimental missiles down range to satisfy my thirst for potential adventure. About a thousand of ’em.

How did all of that come about, and what are my thoughts in retrospect?

This article gives the highlights, and some of the lower-lights as well.

Also, the question will be asked and answered: How good is the .340 Weatherby Magnum cartridge… and, good for what?

In brief, it is as good as the .338 Lapua, if anyone is listening.

(A reformed .340 case on left, and a .375 H&H cartridge on right)

The .340 Weatherby Magnum was the brain child of Roy Weatherby, of course. It came out in 1962, largely in response to Winchester’s .338 that appeared in 1958. The Winchester version of a .338 magnum was simply the .458 Winchester Magnum necked “DOWN” to .338-caliber, whereas the .340 Weatherby (also a .338-caliber) was necked “UP” from the .300 Weatherby (.308-caliber). It seemed apparent to all interested that Roy didn’t want anyone, or any company, to outdo him and his company in ballistics from a cartridge/rifle in any caliber — he wanted to be “head of the pack”. And he succeeded. Original ballistics for the two .338- magnums were a 250gr at 2700 fps/4046 ft-lbs for the Winchester and 2860 fps/4540 ft-lbs for the Weatherby. Those figures were from 24-inch barrels, or were they 26-inches? Who knows. Both have been published. Later, Winchester lowered their number to 2660 fps/3927 ft-lbs, and Weatherby increased theirs to 2950 fps/4830 ft-lbs! The Winchester number was definitely from a 24-inch tube, and Weatherby’s increased ballistics was from a 26-inch barrel. That finally settled matters as to 250-grainers, but both companies have other bullet weights in their repertoire as well.

There’s no question that the .340 Weatherby’s ballistics are superior to those from the .338 Winchester, whether we are talking factory or home-brewed types, because the Weatherby case is longer and has from 11 to 17% greater capacity depending on brands and who does the measuring.

I’ve made handloads for two personal .338 Win Mags, and assisted a son in developing loads for his. One of mine had a 20-inch, and the other wore a 26-inch barrel. My son’s was in 24″ format, so I have a pretty good idea of what a .338 WM can achieve in ballistics. The best I got in MV from 250s was from the Hornady SP at 2842 fps/4483 ft-lbs, and that from the 26-inch Browning. My 20-inch FS SAKO made just over 2700 fps from the 250gr Sierra — it did it using a couple of prime powders. All other 250s were max at from 2643 to 2667 fps. That’s not bad from a 20-inch, as they represent what might be expected from factory fodder in a 24-inch barrel… maybe. My son’s 24-inch, Remington 700, was making 2735 fps from the 250 Hornady SP for a moose hunt. It did it’s job very well. That was in using 73 grains of IMR 4831. Tops? Don’t know. Perhaps MRP or RL-22 or 19 may have done a little better. But none of that is .340 Weatherby ballistics. The 2842 fps load from my Browning came the closest to original Weatherby ballistics, but not Weatherby’s “improved” ballistics, and 160 fps in arrears of what I was able to safely attain from handloads of a 250-grain Nosler Partition in my 26-inch Browning after it was converted from a .338 Win Mag to the .340 Weatherby.

The .340 brass I employed was .375 H&H reformed. They lasted “forever”. Never were there signs of excess pressure as measured by primer pockets — which never expanded even from the warmest loads. I threw them out on principle after about ten firings because the necks became work hardened. And case extraction was always smooth and easy. Plus, accuracy wasn’t a real concern for my hunting load of the 250 Nos. Partition at 3000 fps/4995 ft-lbs. Over several years they averaged 1.25″ at 100 yards.

All available appropriate powders were tried. RL-22 proved significantly superior to others in muzzle velocity, and excellent in accuracy and stability under variable ambient conditions. The load of 90.5 grains of RL-22, ignited by a WLRM primer never ever fell apart. It remained constant regardless of conditions. Other powders tried were IMR 4831, IMR 7828, H4831, WMR, AA3100, etc. Primers tried were Federal 215 and 215M, CCI250, and Rem 9-1/2M.

Cases were Remington .375 H&H necked and fireformed in the chamber of my .340. One day at our range a fellow shooter wanted to know if I could use his .375 H&H once-fired cases since he didn’t reload them. He was going to Africa on safari. Of course, I knew they could be fireformed to .340 WBY since that case was based on the .300 Weatherby simply necked up, and that the .300 Weatherby was just the .375 H&H necked down and blown out. Primers were Winchester Magnum. As mentioned, many seemingly appropriate powders were tried near the beginning of matters, as well as primers, and it took considerable testing of components to get into the middle 2900s muzzle velocity with decent accuracy. Also, the barrel having originally been made for the .338 Win Mag that produced unheard of velocities from that cartridge, were still less “violent” in recoil, and trauma to the barrel itself, until speeds of the 250s got over 2900 fps as a .340 WBY. Yet that free-floated barrel was not quite heavy enough to withstand that measure of aggression. So I epoxied a couple of stainless screws into the fore-end of the synthetic stock to put some upward pressure on the barrel. The screws were adjustable, and it took some tinkering to get them “just right”. Once there, the rifle shot MOA or better from its best loads. It’s best load for hunting big game was the 250 Nosler Partition at an average (over a decade) of 2997 fps. With that load I shot a decent bull moose at 165 yards in Northern Ontario. From two quick shots it dropped where it stood. No chasing after it into a swamp or thickets. Both were lung shots behind the shoulders. That in itself was somewhat impressive.

How good, then, is the .340 Weatherby; and good for what?

Let’s compare it briefly with the every-day .30-06: Surely, a properly loaded .30-06 will drop a bull moose at 165 yards from two shots — but not likely from two shots to the lungs where the spine, brain and heart are left intact. The .30-06, from best handloads, will make about 3200 – 3300 ft-lbs KE at the muzzle from 180 to 200 gr bullets. My .340 was making about 5000 ft-lbs. No reasonable person with basic ballistic knowledge would equate the two as equals in potential trauma to the flesh, bone and blood of a big game animal — whether at near or far ranges. Sectional densities, velocities and bullet cross-sectional area all favor the .340 to a meaningful degree, no matter how your measure matters. And visual results agree. If the two bullets have the same construction and impact location is the same at 150 yards, a 200gr NP leaving the muzzle of a .30-06 at a reasonable 2700 fps, hitting a bull moose through the lungs will do so at about 2430 fps/2622 ft-lbs with a frontal cross-sectional area of about .112 sq-in. The .340 WBY, on the other hand, will motivate the 250gr NP to impact the lungs of the same animal at 2710 fps/4076 ft-lbs with a frontal cross-sectional area of 135 sq-in, when both are expanded to 1.5 times original diameter. That’s 55% greater energy and 20% greater bullet area, plus a sectional density of .313 vs .301! The fact of the matter is, had I waited a few seconds more before I squeezed the trigger the second time, the bull would have collapsed on the spot anyway — from a lung shot that was through and through, with lung tissue and blood sprayed over the shrubs and bushes on the far side of the animal.

Based on kinetic energy alone, there are few, if any, cartridges in the medium bore class that are its equal, or that can surpass it. The .338 Lapua and .338 Rem Mag are both in its category, but both are either more costly to purchase or scarcer in location of brass. The .338/.378 Weatherby will surpass it in ballistics by about 100 fps for a 250gr premium bullet (And, I’d recommend premiums only at those speeds for game or trophy hunting.). So, the only restriction on this cartridge would be where it’s not legal in Africa for certain species due to caliber size. And, I’m fully convinced it would work well enough on those DG barring legalisms. As to effective range: whatever is legal and sane.

Any negatives? Every cartridge has some weaknesses. As good as the .30-06 might be, and it became my first choice for handloading, though it would not be my first choice today, nor the last — there are too many others that are better at doing the same things. So too, while at one time I thought the .340 Weatherby Magnum would become my favorite for any big game hunting, I realized it imposed some restrictions on my style of hunting under typical physical conditions; the primary one being that 75% of my big game hunts were in the relatively close quarters of heavy woods or brushy conditions where visability limited ranges to less than 200 yards. Still, the .340 would never be a mistake on dangerous domestic or foreign game at 200 yards, or even 20! I’m thinking bear in particular, but not reserved to that species.

(1000 – 1100 lbs of moose doesn’t shrink as you approach it!)

To illustrate the point about bears, I just watched for the third or fourth time the taking of a trophy black bear on Vancouver Island. It was a DIY hunt sans pro guides. The shot was ranged at 502 yards! The bear was hit through the heart but still made it to the edge of an embankment and plunged down into an “impossible” thicket for twenty yards. They had to use their pickup to pull it up out of there. Mention was not made of the cartridge used, but it was a “tricked-out” rifle with all the bells and whistles, and perhaps a magnum. Yet the shooter was laying prone when the trigger was squeezed — that would suggest to me that is was NOT a medium-magnum. Perhaps a 7mm magnum or even a .300. Mention WAS made several times over that the shooter had spent “hundreds” in bullets alone in practice. I would NEVER have taken a shot like that from prone position using my .340 that produced 54 ft-lbs of recoil shooting the 250gr Nosler at 3000 fps! By reducing bullet weight down to the 210gr NP at about 3200 fps/4774 ft-lbs, that should reduce recoil by about 12%. In sending that 210gr at 3000 fps, there would be a total reduction in recoil of about 31% from the top load — the 210 load would be making about 41 ft-lbs in recoil according to my rough calculations. It seems to me that would make a good load for bear, any bear, at reasonable distances — but NOT from prone!

The BALLISTICS of MY PRIME BIG GAME LOAD:

Rifle: Browning A-Bolt SS (LH) in .340 Weatherby Magnum
Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition
Brass: Reformed Remington .375 H&H
Powder: 90.5 grains RL-22
Primer: WLRM

MV = 3000 fps/5000 ft-lbs
50 yds = 2900 fps/4668 ft-lbs
100 yds = 2802 fps/4358 ft-lbs/ +3″
150 yds = 2707 fps/4067 ft-lbs
200 yds = 2613 fps/3790 ft-lbs
250 yds = 2522 fps/3530 ft-lbs/ +/- 0.0″
300 yds = 2432 fps/3283 ft-lbs
350 yds = 2344 fps/3050 ft-lbs
400 yds = 2258 fps/2830 ft-lbs
450 yds = 2173 fps/2621 ft-lbs
500 yds = 2091 fps/2427 ft-lbs
550 yds = 2010 fps/2243 ft-lbs
600 yds = 1931 fps/2070 ft-lbs
650 yds = 1854 fps/1908 ft-lbs/ -55″

Ambient conditions for these results would be average for my seven moose hunts in Northern Ontario. And the 250gr AccuBond would have greatly improved those ballistics had they been available during those years of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

(Have you ever watched a bear in action at a bait site? I have numerous times; one good reason why I respect them.)

However, what I did discover with time was that my beloved .340 tended to spend more time alone in the gun cabinet. It seemed that other rifles worked very well at the relatively short ranges I found myself in for moose and bear closer to home.

Then, for some, the recoil of a .340 WBY might frighten them or discourage much needed practice time to gain confidence in the field in placing shots where needed.

Also, unless I had the right financial status, I wouldn’t invest in the factory ammo product from Weatherby — very costly! Then again, much the same applies to “premium” products from others, even for the most common calibers/cartridges. In our area, $60 for a box of twenty in .30-06 isn’t uncommon! But that’s mere “pocket change” compared to sabot slugs for shotguns!

The good news is that if you load your own in .340, you can ask the shooter of a .375 H&H if he has use for reloading his .375 H&H brass. If not, then politely mention that you could redeem their usefulness. If not, check the refuse barrel, there may be some hidden in there near the bottom — ya never know until a search is made!

And, if you intend to do much shooting of anything these days, handloads are the only way to go!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Easter will soon be here; what is its message? In the 8th century B.C., the Prophet Isaiah wrote this prediction of the suffering Christ (Messiah):

“He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hid their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah chapter 53, verses 3 – 6 and 10 – 11; NIV)

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser — Supreme Loads — Part 2

In my previous blog on this theme, personal background and philosophy of supreme handloads for my 9.3 x 62 in a new TIKKA T3 Lite were presented. In the philosophy of handloading any centerfire rifle, eighteen parameters were enumerated that I use as guidelines for that activity, five of which were commented on in PART 1.  In PART 2, I will summarize as briefly as possible the significance of the remaining thirteen.

(211 grains remaining of a 286 gr Nosler Partition taken from a black bear)

Again briefly: These are NOT the only loads I’ve tried, nor are they the only ones I will use. There are others that are very good, and that serve a purpose, but the three highlighted in these blogs use a single rifle powder — RL-17 — and the other components mentioned in these articles. The bullets are the 250gr Nosler AccuBond, the 286gr Nosler Partition, and the Woodleigh 320gr PP. The cases are Hornady. Other details follow.

So far, I’ve commented on:

MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) > very important; go back and read.

BARREL LENGTH > mine is 22.44″ (570 mm)

EXPANSION RATIO > Defined. Not understood by most handloaders, shooters and hunters.

POWDER TYPE & BURN RATE: RL-17 is a medium-slow powder similar to IMR 4350. But it is a more dense powder containing a percentage of nitroglycerine giving it more energy than IMR 4350 — more potential velocity in other words.

AMOUNT OF POWDER > I use 109.5% load density.

*************************************************************************************

BORE SIZE > That is bore diameter as measure to the bottom of the lands. 9.3 mm = .366- caliber. That’s approximately midway between .358-cal and .375-cal. In other terms, it’s a “medium” or mid-bore caliber rifle. But the overall length of the cartridge is about the same as a .30-06 while having approximately 11.5% greater volume, depending on brands of each.

VOLUME OF CHAMBER > This isn’t the same thing as cartridge volume. Some chambers are somewhat oversize, others nearly spot on according to SAAMI, and others still, undersize. Then, there is the possible issue of freebore (like Weatherby) that will be discussed later in this list.

Yes, it’s possible for a chamber to be undersized from the factory. I had one in my Remington M673 in .350 Remington Magnum. It wasn’t finished by the factory — only in the rough. Handloads for 250s couldn’t make 2500 fps. And factory ammo left circular imprints of machining on the empty cases. I took it to my gunsmith. He did a gauge test and said the chamber had been “roughed out only” and never finished. He corrected the problem and the chamber then had a mirror-like finish. Handloads gave an increase of up to 200 fps with NO signs of excess pressure!

I also had a very tight chamber and neck in a 7mm Rem Mag in a BAR. Once fired cases had no need for resizing — even the neck was so tight that a bullet could be seated as though it were an unfired case! I got rid of it for an M70 Winchester in .300 Win Mag. No such nonsense there.

The volume of the chamber is determined by the area displaced by the cartridge, plus leade, plus enough space for the cartridge to slightly expand, including the neck, releasing gases and the bullet before shrinking back to almost normal size prior to expansion. That’s so the fired case can be extracted from the chamber without undue effort. So the chamber’s actual dimensions determine volume that has an ultimate effect on pressure and powder charge.

Should there be no need to full-length resize a case before charging with powder and seating a bullet, then one of three possibilities are in effect:
1) The powder charge isn’t normal for the cartridge — it’s a low-pressure charge.
2) The chamber is too tight, or
3) Someone wants to neck-size only for accuracy purposes as done by some target shooters. However, the loads must be below par or otherwise the cases will “grow” with a few firings to the point of difficulty in chambering a round; or even making matters impossible to chamber a round. NOT recommended for hunters.

(A fired .308 Winchester case on left, and a 9.3 x 62 on right)

The issue of how many firings may be obtained from cases using a particular load will be determined by the user. Some brands of cases may be harder or softer from the factory, and will have an effect on how many times a particular cartridge-case may be safely used. And that will also depend on the “philosophy” of the particular handloader: Some want to be able to use the same cases for at least ten firings. Such being the case (pun not intended), the handloader may decide to only use “mild loads” to save on costs. Some don’t care. For myself, it depends on my purpose for a particular handload. For hunting purposes, I only use once-fired cases that I know from experience are fully reliable and safe. On occasion, cases for hunting are new — never previously used.

When I owned a .300 Weatherby Magnum, I used Remington brass only. They were loaded as hot as safety and reliability permitted. From its 24-inch barrel, I was getting about 3200 fps from 180s and 3000 fps from 200s. The powder was either IMR4831 or RL-22. Even though the cases were used ten times before they were discarded, the primer pockets remained as tight as when new. Remington has made some of the best brass I’ve ever used in a number of cartridges: .458 WM, .45-70, .350 RM, .300 Wby, 7mm Wby…, to name a few.

FREEBORE or LEADE > This has a significant bearing on cartridge free volume. In the 9.3 x 62, I can seat bullets to 3.37″ for smooth operation from the clip magazine. That is nearly 1/10 inch longer than CIP specs, allowing more room for powder. Another way of looking at it is that in effect it is as though the case itself were longer. I’ve done that in all handloads for all rifles where the magazine and throat permitted it. In a .458 Win Mag, for another example, I was able to seat bullets in my CZ550 to about match the .458 Lott. In my Ruger No.1, I seat them to about equal a .458 Win Mag. That is the longer/longest bullets.

BULLET TYPE and CONSTRUCTION > The main bullets used in my premium loads for the 9.3 x 62 has already been detailed. This has a specific influence on pressure and accuracy. Softer bullets tend to expand more under high pressure in the bore. That would be true of pure copper bullets, or pure lead cores with copper jackets. Gilding metal jackets with cores of lead plus 3% antimony, have been created to give less friction in the bore while maintaining their initial shape and construction until impact. Guilding metal is 95% copper and 5% bronze, making bullets more “slippery”. Nosler bullets are of the latter type: gilding metal plus lead with antimony. Woodleighs claim pure copper and lead. Noslers are more accurate from my rifle at max velocity. For max accuracy from the 320gr Woodleigh, they have to be slowed from top velocity from my rifle. Even then, their accuracy doesn’t compare favorably with the Noslers. The Woodleighs are bound to obturate (swell) under pressure more than the Noslers within the bore. Depending on tolerances, that may limit the amount of powder to be used with softer bullets. Other factors are involved as well. (The 320gr Woodleigh)

BULLET WEIGHT > Comments have previously been made. In general, each cartridge-caliber has an optimum range of bullet weights that are most efficient in terms of kinetic energy, sectional density, ballistic coefficient and downrange performance. In standard .30-caliber magnums, it is usually 180 to 200 grainers, for instance. In the 9.3 x 62, it is usually the 285 – 286 grainers, or those in close proximity on either side of that number.

The 9.3 x 62 was created by the German gunsmith, Otto Bock, in Berlin in 1905 for both hunting and protection purposes of German colonialists in East Africa. It has never been a military cartridge. But since the African fauna greatly varied in size, weight and ferocity, it had to be a rifle and cartridge that settlers could use and handle with confidence in any and every situation. The rifle in which it was chambered was the renowned Mauser 98, so often the cartridge has been referred to as the 9.3 x 62 Mauser, or simply, the 9.3 x 62. In any case, it did its intended job very well using mostly heavier bullets in 286-grain, both well constructed softs and solids with a sectional density of .305 (same as the later 300gr/.375 H&H). I’ve used that weight on black bears without failure or wanting for more or less; thought the relatively new 250s from several reputable firms have proven themselves on North American game, including grizzly, as well as African plains game. But, as a one bullet for all things it would be difficult to improve on a premium 286gr, such as the Nosler Partition.

(A 9.3 x 62 cartridge on left loaded with the 250gr Nosler Accubond. A .350 Rem Mag cartridge on right)

PRIMER TYPE > I use WLRM exclusively. Both personal testing and formal tests have proved that this primer is hotter than and burns longer than any other. The advantage? All powder burned with little residue (ash) in the barrel. Also… in my experience, it has proven to be most consistent in MV and accuracy under all ambient conditions when maximum charges (or magnum loads) are called for.

CONDITION OF BORE and CHAMBER > My TIKKA in 9.3 x 62 was purchased new. But as mentioned above in regard to a new .350 Rem Mag, flaws often appear in NEW rifles, and/or USED ones! Should the chamber and/or the bore be involved, that will definitely affect ballistic results. The chamber and bore of my TIKKA shine like a mirror! And, it is a SAKO match grade barrel, that without doubt has proved beneficial in accuracy and other ballistic results.

BARREL TWIST RATE > 1:14, which is standard for the 9.3 x 62. There has been no problem in stablizing the bullets I’ve so-far tried: 232gr to 320gr.

TOLERANCE OF BORE vs TRUE BULLET DIAMETER > Comments have been made. But this is critical. As in the chamber, actual bore size (“tight” or “loose”) WILL affect accuracy and MV. I’ve a friend in Western Canada who bought a used 602 in .458 Win Mag. Even his home-made lead bullets of .460″ wouldn’t obturate enough to fill the bore!

COL > that’s not C.O.A.L. , as “Overall” is one word, not two. As explained above, I seat all bullets as long as permitted by the chamber and magazine. If the powder charge is compressed, and the resized neck is “tight” there need be no fear of not crimping into a cannelure; though I by times use a LEE crimp die.

CARTRIDGE CASE BRAND > There are at times great differences in the volume of different brands of cases. For a fact, I know that certain brands of 9.3 x 62 will not permit the use of the charges of powder I use of RL-17. My cases have only been Hornady, and that’s all I have. I will not use reformed .30-06 or .35 Whelen unless and until all other sources of 9.3 x 62 have dried up — which is not foreseeable in the near future at least.

RIFLE BRAND, TYPE or CONDITION > Significant in the extreme. Word has it that some of the older, used European models have varying throats and bores; both in original form as manufactured, and used. Then, some newly foreign and domestic manufactured ones also are variable in rate of twist, magazine length, barrel length, and throat length, all of which will have a profound affect on powder charge and final ballistics. Be aware.

POWDER LOT and AMBIENT TEMPS > As previously stated, RL-17 has proven to be more consistent and stable under variant conditions than RL-15, in my experience with my rifle and powder lot. A different powder LOT may vary in results.

(Bear taken with the 250gr AccuBond at 85 yards. There was complete penetration. Bear went twenty yards)

There you have it! There may well be other issues not entertained here, but all these are potential conditions that affect not only positively but perhaps negatively both the safety and ultimate performance of YOUR 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

So, yes, if you start by loading 70 grains of RL-17 in YOUR 9.3 x 62 behind a 286 Nosler (or any other), you might harm yourself and/or destroy a rifle! On the other hand, if you start around 60 grains and work from there, looking for OBVIOUS signs of too much pressure, you should arrive at… MAGIC!

There is no way in knowing for certain what the PSI is in ANY individual rifle apart from a given load being tested at a lab in THAT rifle! Since none of us have the means to do that, we are reliant on personal testing of loads in OUR rifle. That means we are individually responsible for OUR actions, not those of somebody else!

All of the above is as a witness, NOT a recommendation or a solicitation for anyone to attempt to do what I’ve successively achieved.

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

 

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser — Supreme loads Part 1

Over the past few years I’ve often been asked how to get the results I do from handloads in my 9.3 x 62 Mauser. My loads basically equal factory loads from a 9.3 x 64 Brenneke, surpass factory loads of a .338 Winchester Magnum, and are on the heels of a .375 H&H. How is all that possible from a cartridge not much larger than a .35 Whelen? Good question.

(Typical result from the 286gr Nosler Partition from my TIKKA T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62. Adding 9 fps for correction to muzzle = 2622 fps) (Left click on pics to enlarge)

There are a number of parameters that determine the end ballistics of any rifle that is being handloaded, regardless of caliber. They are the following:

1. MAP — maximum average pressure as well as its duration — or as some state it: “the pressure under the curve” — meaning if a graph were made it would look something like the profile of a salt water cat fish starting with its mouth, over its rounded abrupt head, then gradually sloping to its tail. But all oceanic cat fish don’t have the exact same profile, some are larger and others smaller than average. Or, to say it differently it would be the average of the highest part of the pressure curve, though that curve will attain its max point at variable distances from where the bullet enters the rifling depending on several factors including, but not limited to, the bullet, powder type and burn rate. Some translate MAP as “maximum allowable pressure”. That’s not exactly so if they mean “maximum peak pressure”, which is MPP. Some of the pressure readings will exceed average and others will be less than average, thus making things “average”. PSI in such conditions are of necessity “average”, not fixed. There is therefore an allowable differential from shot to shot that will not likely exceed 5000 psi from lowest to highest. The average will likely be somewhere in the middle.
2. BARREL LENGTH.
3. EXPANSION RATIO.
4. POWDER TYPE & BURN RATE.
5. AMOUNT OF POWDER.
6. BORE SIZE.
7. VOLUME OF CHAMBER
8. FREE BORE or LEADE
9. BULLET TYPE & CONSTRUCTION
10. BULLET WEIGHT.
11. PRIMER TYPE
12. CONDITION of BORE.
13. RATE of BARREL TWIST.
14. TOLERANCE of BORE vs TRUE BULLET DIAMETER.
15. CARTRIDGE OVERALL LENGTH.
16. CARTRIDGE BRAND.
17. RIFLE BRAND, TYPE, AGE & CONDITION.
18. Any other possible variables, such as ambient temps and powder lot.

ALL of the above are involved in the results I’ve obtained from handloads in my TIKKA T3 Lite chambered in 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

In addition, matters of personal philosophy regarding any handloads for any rifle is involved as well as personal experience over several decades of fabricating countless thousands of loads for centerfire rifles from .223″ to .458″.

With that as a preamble, I’ll begin to spell out in detail the product of sending a 250gr – 9.3 out the 22.5″ barrel of my TIKKA at 2700 +fps, a 286gr at 2600 +fps, and a 320gr at 2400 +fps. The actual average numbers are: 2714 fps, 2622 fps and 2464 fps. You could calculate the kinetic energy at the muzzle for each but I’ll save you the effort. They are:4088 ft-lbs, 4365 ft-lbs and 4314 ft-lbs. MAP for each is approximately 64,000 psi. I have other loads that are less energetic, and for a purpose, but the three mentioned are those in which others show interest, and the 286gr heads that list. Indeed, it should as it appears to be the best balanced in overall internal and external ballistics for a variety of game from medium to large. One powder is used for each of those three bullets, and gives safe performance that no others can come to within 170 fps of, that I’ve yet tried to this point in time. That powder is RL-17.

Let it be said, however, that I started the reloading process for the 9.3 x 62 in the use of RL-15 as I already had “tons of” experience with it in several “mediums”, including .35 Whelens, a .350 Rem Mag and a .375 H&H, so thought it would likely be “best” in the 9.3 x 62. Also, I’ve given H414 a fair try as well. It’s a good performer but can’t match RL-17, at least in my experience in my rifle even though they are “supposed to” have the same approximate burn rate.

Down range energy at 500 yards for the 250gr AccuBond is over 2000 ft-lbs, and the 286gr Nosler Partition is about 2100 ft-lbs, depending of course on ambient conditions that I think will not affect in a practical sense the outcome on a game animal if the bullet in question is placed correctly. 500 yards is a loooong way out there! And I would only take such a shot on a large animal under suitable conditions with a solid rest. The 320gr Woodleigh isn’t as accurate in my rifle as the other two, but might be preferred on a brown bear or Cape buff at less than too far — whatever that might be. Since I’ve been in neither of those situations, I take it that the outfitter would have made those decisions well ahead of the fact.

BACKGROUND and HISTORY:

a) Philosophy of handloading: That has developed with time and experience. For example, the two premium Nosler loads (250gr AccuBond and 286gr Partition) at 2714 fps and 2622 fps respectively, have load densities of 109.5% in Hornady cases at a COL of 3.37″. There are many loads in recent manuals for common cartridges fired in strong modern bolt-action rifles that match or exceed that degree of load density. Some are as high as 115% with the right relatively slow burning powder for the cartridge and bullet employed. Some reloaders will not go there for their own reasons — that’s their business, not mine. But neither is it their business IF I choose to use a relatively slow burning powder for a particular application which might allow better overall safe performance, even at less PSI, than a “normal” powder for that application might allow.

As an example of the above, there is a fairly familiar person on a couple of well-known outdoor forums who is about my age with considerable experience as an agent for African hunting. According to him, he also has shot a lot of game in Africa, large, medium and small. One of his rifle favorites has been in 9.3 x 62. But in America he favors the .338 Win Mag for larger game. Nothing wrong with that as it’s his business. However, having read my stuff on the 9.3 x 62 he contacted me about my formula in the use of RL-17. Later, on a forum, he said it didn’t work much better than RL-15, when he was asked about it. But what he didn’t say was that he doesn’t like compressed loads. He has expressed that on numerous occasions. That’s his business, but to be fair about it he should have admitted that he didn’t make use of the information I provided him with.

I know for a fact that my top compressed loads employing RL-17 evidence LESS PSI than RL-15 at an increase of 170 fps over the latter shooting the same, or similar weight bullets! That’s an increase of over 500 ft-lbs at the muzzle! And that particular load from RL-15 was only safe in cooler temperatures, not in the heat of July. On the other hand, the top load making use of RL-17 has proven completely safe regardless of ambient conditions. I know that from experience — not theory!

Also, there are several on those forums whose background and experience is European who have used either factory loads or matching handloads in their 9.3 x 62s. The information they have provided is traditional — nothing new employing modern rifles and components.

The 9.3 x 62 is still relatively unknown in North America, but is coming on strong in the last ten years or so. Most add it to their arsenal for reasons known only to them, but from chatter on the forums it appears evident that it’s just another “toy” — you know, “I’ve got one of those too”, sort of thing. Some have owned one for years and it’s never been fired; not yet at least!

There are others, of course, who are serious about it and want to know how to get the best performance possible in a safe manner — I write for their benefit.

I’m not naive enough to think that my 9.3 x 62 can actually match top ballistics from a .375 H&H or .375 Ruger when each is loaded with the best powders, same weight bullets in equal length barrels, and at the same MAP. If I owned, for example, a new .375 H&H with a 24-inch barrel and loaded it max with a 300gr AccuBond, I’m quite certain that 2650 fps could be safely attained. I don’t entertain a hint of a doubt. Cut the barrel to match my barrel length of 22.5″ and I think it would be reasonable to attain 2600 fps from the same 300gr. That’s 4503 ft-lbs. Mine will make 4395 ft-lbs from the 286gr Nosler at an average of 2631 fps — which on average I’ve attained on several occasions. Does 105 ft-lbs matter very much on game that might go 2000 lbs? On the other hand, most (not all) .375 H&H’s come with 24″ barrels. In such a case the esteemed H&H can nudge 5000 ft-lbs — check Barnes manual #4. For myself, however, the weight and handiness of a compact powerhouse would be lost, as well its utility as a do-it-all rifle. The Ruger Hawkeye in .375 Ruger seems better suited in it’s 20″ format as a “do-it-all”, but it’s ballistics are really little better than my 9.3 x 62 that can push a 300gr at 2550 fps and a 320gr at 2460 through the use of RL-17.

So, which is better? Flip a coin. The Ruger is heavier and louder, having more recoil unless the muzzle brake is screwed in place that makes it just as long and MUCH LOUDER! For those reasons I feel no urge to switch to the .375 Ruger. As previously stated in my writings, if a .375-magnum caliber were wanted for whatever reason or notion, it would be the .375 H&H.

(The TIKKA T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62 Mauser)

b) PRAGMATISM: some of which has been expressed in the above. Yet, there are other practical reasons for me choosing the 9.3 x 62 Mauser. Let me enumerate them:

1 – Ballistics can equal or exceed any of the “Mediums” I’ve previously owned, including .338s, .358s and the .375. The .338s include two Winchester Magnums; the .358s include two each of the .350 Rem Mag and the .35 Whelen; and the .375 includes three H&Hs — a 22″, a 24″ and a 26″. It was only the 26″ that surpassed the ballistics that I currently receive from my 9.3 x 62.

2 – I’d never previously owned a centerfire magazine rifle with its combination of ballistics and handiness as in my TIKKA T3 Lite chambered in 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

While anything is possible, yet my 9.3 will never be used on brown bear, grizzly, Cape buff or elephant during my ownership, yet the 9.3 x 62 has been successfully employed on each, and found not wanting, as well as all of Africa’s plains game to such small creatures as oribi. Therefore, plans for it’s use on coyote and wolf are still in my thinking, not even to mention the largest ungulates of North America.

Regarding the PARAMETERS mentioned at the outset:

MAP >> As previously expressed in numerous blogs: I use 64,000 PSI (piezo) as a guide for top loads. My rifle will easily handle that being of new manufacture in which the .338 Win Mag has also been chambered by TIKKA.

BARREL LENGTH >> 22.44-inch (570mm). Ideal for this application.

EXPANSION RATIO >> is the ratio of case volume to barrel volume. The higher that number, the more efficient a rifle is. Mine is 9+ with its 22.5″ barrel. A 24″ .338 Win Mag is 7+. Therefore the 9.3 x 62 has an efficiency of over 28% more than a 24″ .338 Win Mag. That explains why the 9.3 x 62 can match or exceed the ballistics of a .338 Win Mag with a longer barrel burning more powder in the process. A .375 H&H is about equal to the 9.3 x 62 in expansion ratio — it is equally efficient. 70 grains of the right powder in each will give approximately equivalent ballistics, in other words.

POWDER TYPE and BURN RATE >> Double base powder has more energy than single base due to a percentage of nitroglycerin in addition to nitrocellulose. RL-17 is a double base powder. IMR 4350 is a single base powder (nitrocellulose). They have a similar burn rate (depending on application), but RL-17 has more energy. For a cartridge that has minimal shoulder, such as the 9.3 x 62, IMR4350 is usually considered too slow and bulky to get best performance — as in a .375 H&H or 9.3 x 62 for example. So, RL-17 also would normally be considered too slow if load density was only 100% — and it likely would be at about 60 grains in a Norma case at a COL of 3.29″, as one example. But give it a compressed load of nearly 110% in a Hornady case and magic happens!

THAT IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR ANYONE! It is simply an EXPLANATION of the process I’ve developed over time and with experience in arriving at what appears to be from all evidence a safe maximum load. It is also accurate, consistent and stable under diverse climatic conditions.

AMOUNT OF POWDER >> That will depend largely on all the other factors listed here, such as COL, POWDER TYPE, etc. I started at where I ended with RL-15 and worked up from there. 66 grains of RL-17 gave exactly in MV and accuracy, as well as POI, what 60 grains of RL-15 gave behind the 286gr Nosler. In fact, in placing the RL-17 target over the RL-15 target, they perfectly matched in location and extreme spread from three-shot groups. Two things were different though — recoil; RL-17 burning six grains more produced noticeably increased recoil, but at significantly reduced PSI. 60 grains of RL-15 was 1.5 grains more than max according to the Nosler Reloading Guide #6. I’d tried their suggested max behind the 286gr Hornady and it about matched their results with good accuracy. But their brass was Norma and they used the standard COL of 3.29″. I finished off a wounded bear with the 286gr Hornady in the Fall of 2011. The following Spring (2012) I began working with RL-17 and the 286gr Nosler Partition at a COL of 3.37″ — which is max in the clip of my TIKKA for smooth functioning. I also found that the former max load of 60 grains of RL-15 behind the 286 Hornady, that produced 2460 fps (same as the 66 grains of RL-17) in the cool Fall temps of 2011, was way too hot and erratic in the warm temps of May 2012! So I continued working with RL-17 behind the 286 Nosler. But I increased the load from 66 grains that gave 2460 fps (corrected to muzzle) at a COL of 3.37″ to 68 grains. That gave an average between 2546 to 2549 fps with good accuracy. And no signs of pressure beyond what the 58 grains of RL-15 was showing behind the 286 Hornady at a tad over 2400 fps. I thought that might become my “supreme load” for the 9.3 x 62. But, of course, with NO signs of undue pressure throughout the process of employing RL-17 under the 286 Nosler, I just HAD TO TRY 69 grains, and maybe 70! So, I tried them! 69 was just OK… BUT 70 was magic! With a consistent accuracy of sub-moa when I was on my game, and regular MVs between 2610 and 2640 fps, the actual average over two years of shooting that load = 2622 fps/4365 ft-lbs. And new cases fired once look like once-fired .308 Win factory loads (of which I’ve several in my collection from the range).

(A once fired .308 Winchester factory load case on left. The once fired 9.3 x 62 case on right. Primer flattening on each is identical, so it is not necessarily any indication of excess pressure.)

BUT, as a note of CAUTION it should be pointed out that the above load gives about 64,000 psi according to QuickLoad. Also, there is NO MORE EVIDENCE of EXCESSIVE pressure than I’ve witnessed from any magnums of the past for which I’ve made handloads. That would included many thousands in total for the 7mm Rem and Weatherby, several .300 magnums, .338 and .340 magnums, .375 H&Hs and the .458 Win. In between those were several non-magnum mediums, so-called, plus the .350 Rem and my son’s .356 Win. So I know a little bit about “reading pressure signs”, though there are those who deny that’s possible — even though it’s regularly done by professionals. “Start with the lightest loads and only proceed to the next level if safe to do so based on careful observance of any SIGNS of excess pressure. Never exceed published maximum loads. If there are SIGNS of excessive pressure reduce loads by a couple of grains…” – from manuals.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, I can’t assume responsibility for what one may or may not do with respect to the information provided herein. There are too many variables, the main one being the differences in people and their way of doing things, including thought processes and experience. Then too, the great variation in rifles and handloading components stand second in determining the outcome of any hand-made ammo reproduction.

That’s all folks… for now!

Next time: BORE SIZE; CHAMBER VOLUME, FREE BORE, etc.

Shalom (PS – the angiogram indicated I needed some stents… four of ’em. A stay of 24 hrs at the hospital and home the next day. Have to take a couple of extra pills but feeling great!)

BOB MITCHELL

BIG-BORE Rifle Weight

Just as currently there is a fascination with bullet speed, so there is an illogical fad for a light big-bore rifle. When these two elements converge in the same rifle, nothing in the universe could be more ill-contrived and unfriendly.

Light is right for Medium to Big Bores shooting relatively heavy bullets at moderate speeds. Let’s place some boundaries around what’s intended by such an idea: First of all, what is NOT intended would be something like a 7 lb .338 Lapua with a 20-inch ported barrel! Such a contraption would indeed be worthy of the above description: “nothing in the universe could be more ill-contrived and unfriendly”! Well, there might be others, such as a .460 Weatherby with an 18″ barrel that weighs 8 lbs ready to go! You get the drift…

(That’s my TIKKA T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62 on the scale with scope, rings and four cartridges. Left click on pics for enlargement.)

From experience, in a medium bore I’m thinking something like a .35 Whelen sporting a 22-inch barrel that weighs a mere 8 lbs, all up, ready for a bull moose hunt shooting a quality 250gr pointed bullet with controlled expansion at a modest 2550 fps. Such an innovation would be a beautiful idea, and the basic parts would perhaps already exist in a reputable gunsmith’s shop. Or, premium 225s could be pushed along at 2700 to 2800 fps for the same chore, and even additional ones. Weight would not wear-out some 60-year old legs, and recoil would be middle-ground at about 31 ft-lbs. Those loads would be adequate to 400 yards on a 1200 lb bull with good shot placement.  That’s about the same in recoil and potential results as a .300 Win Mag that will burn 15 grains more powder while in need of a 24″ tube, and weighing an additional 16 ounces or so. But, the .35 Whelen would be in a handier and lighter package. And that would also be an intelligent concept for any handloader who has visions of bear in his cross-hairs, and deer species larger than whitetails while inclusive of such. And what about the not-so-stupid thought of employing pistol slugs for vermin? And, close to 3000 fps from certain 200-grainers using the right “magic” powder was possible from a couple of 22″ barrels in my experience!

Now there’s a combo fit for anything from jack rabbits to the biggest moose that ever munched aquatic veggies in Alaska! And it wouldn’t wear you out in the mountains or cause some sort of neuroses over muzzle blast and savage recoil!

The .35 Whelen has been around longer than I have, and likely will continue to be a very practical and versatile rifle cartridge long after I’m gone! I don’t believe that will be said of a lot of the “hot” numbers that are proliferating today. Novelties? Yes! Needed? No! Brass will always be available for the .35 Whelen because the .30-06 isn’t going away anytime soon.

All that’s needed is a .30-06 size rifle with a .358-inch bore. It should weigh no more than 7 lbs bare. And a 2 – 7 x 35mm scope, four cartridges and a 1″ nylon sling, and you would be set for anything this continent (and most others) have to offer. It’s better than its parent, the famed .30-06, and better too on the bottom end than my favorite medium, the 9.3 x 62, but not quite as good at the top end for the most heavy stuff. And that’s not to doom it with faint praise. As mentioned on a few occasions, I was looking for another .35 Whelen when I came home with the 9.3 x 62.

(This is a good black bear. Range to bait setup was 85 yards. Bear was 350 to 400 lbs.)

Depending on what we hunt, where and how often should determine what rifle, or rifles, we choose and the caliber/cartridge. If we should want a one rifle do-it-all, kind of thing, or one rifle among several that is to become a favorite for most big-game hunting, then, in my view a medium-bore is the best choice if annual hunts are expected for elk, moose or bear. Then, if an African hunt for plains game is in our dreams, a medium is never a mistake as we will already have experience with it. For example, I would feel completely confident and at ease in using my 9.3 x 62 if I ever visited Africa again. Because of its earned reputation on African fauna, small and large, and my own domestic experience, I’d have zero qualms. It’s weight at 7.7 lbs ready is near ideal for long days afield. It has never been a burden to get in and out of tree stands, and I can walk for miles with it slung on my shoulder. Recoil gets “up there” at around 45 – 50 ft-lbs from maximum loads, and I’m fully acquainted with that level of ballistic response, but I also have a relatively mild load for deer and wolf that generates about 28 ft-lbs of back thrust. We carry a lot more than we shoot, so I prefer a relatively light rifle for most chores, but not so short that I’d have to endure an horrific blast. I’ve had one of those in a Marlin Guide Gun with the infamous ports. One shot without adequate protection would leave your ears head ringing for several hours later! Even though it was in my favorite caliber, it went down the road never to have a welcome mat put out for it again!

But what about the weight of a true Big Bore? While I’ve owned four 1895 Marlins chambered in the potent .45-70, one being that infamous GG with porting, the others were excellent in every way except weight. With a very stout 22″ barrel, scope and four cartridges, they didn’t qualify as “lightweights”. Even those with the 18.5″ barrels are only 1/4 lb lighter. Having said all that, I consider the 1895 Marlin in .45-70 to be a practical rifle for deer, hogs, bear, moose and elk — when handloads are used, or the +P loads from Garrett, CorBon, etc. The metal lever, drop at comb to make the irons functional, and the hard butt pad, however, contribute to a feeling of unfriendliness in the recoil department when max loads are counted on to finish off a moose or elk at 300 yards. So, speaking personally, I preferred the excess weight in the barrel end to assist in the management of back-thrust when a 400-grain was leaving the muzzle at 2000+ fps! Even then, the overall heft of that firearm would be preferable to that of a .378 Weatherby, or even the typical .458 Win Mag. But, as already indicated, the M77 Ruger in .458 Win Mag with it’s standard-length action and 22″ heavy barrel, that I once owned, was near ideal for the errands expected of it on this end of the world. All up about 9.25 lbs. The Marlins went about 3/4 to 1-lb less. My Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT runs 8.6 lbs with its Nikon 2 – 7 x 32mm scope, nylon sling and 5 cartridges on the stock loaded with 350gr bullets. I find that weight ideal for that rifle when shooting 350s at about 2500 fps, and I can tote it all day without any sense of fatigue. A plus factor is its handiness at 38.25 inches (That one on the header).

The Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT comes very close to the ideal package for a Big Bore in my estimation. Its size, weight, power and ballistic versatility are about perfect if handloads are employed. Some might find it a bit too light when max loads are applied, but max loads are only “needed” on rare occasions. The most obvious downside, for those who believe that fast follow-ups are essential to success and even security, is that all Ruger No.1s are “single-shots”, so-called. Of course, that is a misnomer, and misleading, as one can fire just as many shots from a Ruger No.1 as from an AR-15! It’s just a matter of how quickly that could be done.

I’ve previously written on this theme a couple of times. In my estimation, and experience, if an ideal big-bore bullet is selected for a particular hunt, AND we’ve done enough realistic practice with it (a minimum of 60 rounds after the load has been selected and developed — the equivalent of three boxes of factory ammo), we shouldn’t lack confidence in using it on the game for which it has been selected. Moreover, that conviction should include the confidence of placing the first shot in a vital area of the beast — be it the brain, heart, shoulders and/or lungs. Rarely, have I ever NEEDED to fire a second shot, and rarely has the opportunity presented itself to do so. Occasionally, I’ve applied a finisher, but the time frame usually involved 30 seconds to a few minutes. That’s more than ample time for a reload, even from a BP musket!

My conclusion is: Since I’ve never lost a game animal, or predator, due to lack of “firepower”, a so-called single-shot would suffice for 90+% of my hunting activities. Ask yourself this question: Why is there a dramatic increase in the number and variety of BP rifles appearing in the market place? I have a good hunting friend who uses one for all his big-game hunts!

Of course, that’s not all there is to the issues involved; I have five live cartridges on the stock of my Ruger No.1 in addition to one in the chamber. And I could load a second (if needed) aim, and fire it within 4 seconds… much faster than any BP! Yes, NOT as fast as an aficionado using a bolt-action, BUT, how often have I witnessed on camera the pros (or those who think they are because they write about this stuff or produce TV shows) mess up with a JAM from their $10,000 Mauser 98 bolt-action (and its variants, as in M70s), even dropping reloads on the ground! Now, I’ll admit, there’s a sense of added security in a repeater, but it may turn out to be a “false sense”. A bolt-action repeater isn’t fool-proof! Neither are those who stake their lives (or their hunt) on them.

(That’s a “single-shot” NEF in .45-70. One shot was all that it took to drop this bear so fast I lost sight of it in the tall grass.)

Security is not in action type, but in what’s “upstairs”! (Another topic for another day.)

But being able to manage the balance of recoil vs weight over the long haul of a serious hunt is at least as important as “firepower” — and in my view it has even greater relevance to the enjoyment of the hunt and perhaps the achievement of its ultimate goal. What is meant by that? Well, at least one major goal of a hunt is enjoyment, and it will be very difficult to enjoy the experience if the rifle is a burden, or we fear its recoil, no matter how many rounds are in the magazine. I realize that’s an individual thing — whatever we choose, it should fit us well and it needs to become an extension of who we are.

In today’s world of sporting rifles for big game that may also qualify for dangerous game, there seems no end of factory offerings, as well as potential custom jobs that cost just short of a fortune. So if one has deep enough pockets, whatever suits one’s fancy is obtainable — though that may consume up to thirty-six months! On the other hand, as to factory offerings, Ruger builds at least one with real potential. The .375 Ruger Hawkeye with a 20″ spout has become the darling of many resident hunters in Alaska. The claim by both Hornady (who makes the ammo) and Ruger is that ballistics equal to the .375 H&H with a “normal” 24″ barrel is attainable from the 20″ Ruger .375, no less. And all that from Hornady factory offerings! Perhaps…. but I’ve yet to see the actual results of that claim fulfilled in neutral tests. From published handloads in reloading manuals in my office, we find these results:

NOSLER #6 manual made use of a 26-inch Pac-Nor barrel, whereas Ruger’s longest in factory guise is 23″. But even that isn’t the average one chosen by buyers in Alaska! They like the 20-inch! So I find NOSLER to be no help at all in regard to the same loads from a 20″ Ruger .375. But even with the 26″ test barrel, it’s no better than the .375 H&H using an equal length barrel of 26-inches! I’ve attained exactly from my 26-inch .375 H&H what Nosler has published for the 26-inch .375 Ruger.

HORNADY #9 regurgitates for the .375 H&H what they published in their #7. From a 24″, they have “forever” published a max load for their 300s attaining 2500 fps, and 2700 fps for their 270s. No news there! When I started to reload for my first .375 H&H (a Winchester M70 with a 24″ barrel) I leaned heavily on Hornady since I was employing their projectiles. Back then — whenever that was — they were publishing 2500 fps as max for their 300s.

The difference in their 9th Edition is that they have added the .375 Ruger with a 20-inch barrel. And the test was done using a Ruger Model 77 Hawkeye. That makes sense! HOWEVER, they made 2700 fps from their 270s and 2550 fps from their 300s. I’ve no doubts about those results. But they still didn’t do the .375 H&H any favors! The .375 H&H can come very close, if not equal, those numbers from a 20″ with today’s best powders.Of course, the Hawkeye has a shorter action… Does that matter? To some it may. The other real advantage of the Hawkeye is that it’s more readily available… maybe in some places? But it would seem to me that H&H brass (and ammo) might be more readily available… maybe in some places, like Africa?

BARNES #4 shows results for each — the .375 Ruger and .375 H&H — from 24-inch test barrels. Apart from their solids, their 270gr TSX gives an advantage to the Ruger of ONE fps! 2837 vs 2836!!! As to the 300 TSX a slight advantage goes to the H&H: 2655 vs 2642. In each case, the Ruger uses a few more grains of powder. Those represent the top loads for each of the two .375-calibers.

As to any advantage? You could flip a coin, perhaps. The Ruger does come in a neat (but ugly) package. Yet I’d not want the muzzle break! On a 20-inch barrel that could cause some serious damage to hearing if fired with it on during a hunt! And a 20″ barrel won’t be pleasant burning 80 grains powder, either! If I ever wanted, or felt “I really must have” (for an unknown reason) a .375 Ruger, it would be in the 23″ barrel version. Even though aesthetics is not first on the agenda for my choice of rifles, it does factor in there somewhere. What I’ve seen in photos of the 20″ version, with the multi-colored stock, odd-looking butt-end and (yes) the screw-on muzzle break, it’s ballistics and “shortness” wouldn’t compensate for. Then, in my view, it’s too heavy for a medium. Ballistics from my TIKKA Lite in 9.3 x 62 is about on a par with the 20″ Ruger .375, and its weight (as mentioned) is a mere 7 lbs, 11 oz ready to hunt. It also burns 8 to 10 grains less powder, and brass can be found almost anywhere — hey, you could use .30-06 or .35 Whelen cases if need be.

(This is my idea of the perfect rifle – A SAKO 85 Black Bear with a 20.5-inch barrel and chambered in 9.3 x 62. It’s a little shorter and a little heavier than my TIKKA T3 Lite in the same chambering — that is also made by SAKO.)

(My 9.3 x 62)

So, my personal all-round, do anything, go anywhere rifle is chambered in 9.3 x 62. My only wish is that sooner than later one of our North American bullet-making firms would come up with a 210 to 225 grain premium bullet in 9.3mm. As an alternative — so I don’t get bored, and have some variety in my life — I’ll ALWAYS have a .458-caliber in a handy package that weighs not more than 8.75 – 9.25 lbs ready. Did I mention I already have that ? Yes, of course, even a few times.

(I’m not a fan of .416s, or any other Big Bore for that matter, due to the absence of suitable bullets for lesser game than the likes of Cape buffalo or eland on the Dark Continent, or brown bear and moose in North America — or such like. In a true Big Bore — .40-cal. and over — I would want to be able to sensibly use it as I might use a .45-70 or BP of .50-caliber.)

Till the next…

P.S. — This will likely be my last blog for the month of January. That’s because a week from tomorrow — Jan. 18 — I’ll be in a hospital for an angiogram that my Cardiologist thinks is necessary. That may result in a stint or more, so I may be out of action for a few days. Nonetheless, I’m not worried about it as I feel great and the Doc says I’m in good physical shape so there shouldn’t be any problems. Plus, as King David wrote in the Psalms “My times are in your hands, LORD.”

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL