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 because 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

RIFLES for Bear Defence

On several Internet forums related to hunting and shooting, a question of this nature appears rather frequently: “What rifle should I be carrying for protection against a bear attack when hiking or hunting in a wilderness area?” Of course, many other questions must be asked and answered before a sane reply is given, such as: What territory, province, state or country is under consideration? Often the OP is thinking Alaska, but not always. It could be one of the Rocky Mountain states, The Yukon, Northwest Territories, a western province or even here in Ontario. Also, any answer should largely depend on whether that would be somewhere in the USA or on Canadian soil. In the latter case, we’re not permitted to carry a sidearm for hunting purposes, and only for protection against wild dangerous animals (bears) by special permission in case one’s employment demands that a person must live and work in a remote wilderness area.

(One of my bear hunting areas — a fall scene. Left click on pics for enlargement.)

Then. these blogs are about rifles, not handguns, though at times they are brought into the picture due to the fact of so many Americans using them in both hunting and for personal protection. I read a lot of discussions about such matters on American based forums. Nonetheless, here I’ll discuss rifles mostly as that is where my experience and research (study) lies. There is one exception, that being in the limited use of a 12ga shotgun under the same physical conditions.

I read a thread on a hunting forum recently in which the OP asked which would be best to carry, a .357 Magnum revolver or a light rifle for protection against a potential bear charge in a remote wilderness area while hiking and hunting (a black bear in this case).

My view, and that of the majority of respondents, was that he’d best carry the rifle under the terms of the expected physical conditions. My aim is NOT to rehash all the implications of that particular discussion here, but rather to share my views based on hundreds of hours of hiking/hunting remote wilderness trails alone.

Up front — I’ve NEVER gone into those remote conditions without a rifle or shotgun at hand. And, frankly, if I were an American on American soil, I’d probably carry a sidearm as well.

In my case, the remote trails referred to are on Crown Land. Canada has a larger land mass that the USA, but only 1/10 of it’s population. So, in most cases, we have a great deal more Crown Land (Public Land) available. Although, in my situation, I choose to use Crown Land that is only about 1 and 1/4 hours by highways/roads from my house. The trails in that particular region were originally old logging roads that became hunting trails. These also gave relatively easy access to the large number of lakes and streams for fishing purposes. Today, a majority of the trails have become official snow mobile and ATV trails, which have in large part spoiled the opportunity to merely walk them with a loaded rifle or shotgun. But for many years before all that came to be, many hunters walked them, or sat off to one side for hunting purposes. I was one of those hunters. Today, I can’t legally carry a loaded rifle while walking or travelling on an ATV. I can’t shoot from these trails or across them. I must be eight meters from their travelled portion. Nonetheless, I can use them to access a hunting area in season, and there are still some that are not officially maintained for recreational purposes. On those I can still carry a loaded firearm. But one must know where to find them, or have access to official maps of these areas that clearly identify recreational trails. In addition to all that, portions of that district are now safe havens for a particular sub-species of wolf. We are being told that since we can’t tell the difference between an eastern coyote and the endangered Algonquin wolf, that any hunting on these reserved areas are off limits for not only wolf hunting but coyote as well! Another win for the antis…

Yet, I can still hunt coyote and wolf in that general area if I know exactly where I am, and they only provide vague maps that say in effect — that anyone hunting these species shouldn’t depend on “the maps” because they are “unofficial”!

(An area in Haliburton Highlands I know well. Could I set up a bear bait here? Perhaps, but I now have to be sure it’s at least 200 meters from a marked trail. It’s habitat for all the species of the area, including wolf, bear, deer and moose, all legal under license and in season.)

In the past, as soon as the ice and snow were mostly in retreat from those pieces of Crown Land, I was out walking the trails with a loaded firearm looking for bear sign. That is, from the 15th of April because that was opening day of bear hunting season. I couldn’t bait them that early, but was scouting the area for any signs of a boar bear out of it’s den. My real intent was scouting for bear not for shooting one that early in the season, even though I bought a bear license before the season commenced. But I carried a rifle for protection. From that point on, even after putting out baits, I walked those trails for sign, exercise and enjoyment. And, I came across bear tracks in puddles and soft soil, as well as tracks of many other creatures. On one favorite trail that crossed a major stream, there was a large puddle just before the bridge after a significant rainfall in May. In and around this puddle I counted the tracks of eight different species of wildlife: moose, deer, bear, coyote, fisher, fox, coon and rabbit. I took some pics along that trail in the fall.

Though I owned other rifles in bolt-action format, there was usually one of three non-bolt-action rifles that got carried while scouting for bear sign: Two were lever-actions and one semi-auto. The one lever-action that often took precedence over any others was an 1895 Marlin in .45-70. In fact, as chronicled in these blogs, my first bear ever was taken over bait with my first Marlin in .45-70. The other lever-action was a Ruger 96-44. It had a very fast action (short throw)and a rotary magazine that held four .44 mag cartridges — handloads only using either 270gr or 300gr hunting bullets. This one got toted whenever I was bringing bait to it’s site. It also came along in walking trails after the bait was situated. The third was a Remington 7400 semi in .35 Whelen. Only handloads got used; it was fast and powerful. One male bear met it’s demise at the expense of one 200-X bullet leaving the muzzle at 2800 fps. Range was 100 yards.

(The Ruger 96/44 not far from my favorite bait site; the one mentioned above that involved the .35 Whelen.)

So what rifle and cartridge is best? What would I recommend? There is NOT only one single rifle type or cartridge, of course, as I’ve personally used several. In kinetic energy alone, there’s a great difference between a .45-70 and a .44 Rem Mag when handloads are used in each. Yet, I had confidence in both when employed under the conditions in which I intended to use them. And the load used to hunt bear over bait was not the most potent for a .35 Whelen either.

My first bear was taken at 100 yards using a 400gr Speer from my Marlin at a muzzle velocity of 1865 fps (3089 ft-lbs), but bullet impact was only about 1535 fps (2092 ft-lbs). The 200gr from the Whelen was making 3480 ft-lbs at the muzzle but 2890 ft-lbs at impact. The first bear taken with the .45-70 was twice the size of the one taken by the Whelen, both at 100 yards, and both went ten yards before expiring. Though the .35 Whelen was making 38% more kinetic energy at impact than the .45-70, yet both died within ten yards. But the “.45-70 bear” was twice the size of the .35 Whelen bear”! That’s one reason I believe in a “BIG HOLE” working best! And, the reason I had faith in a 300gr/.429″ bullet from the Ruger 96-44 at a mere 1700 fps! The way I used it, impact would have been nearly 1700 fps for self-defence! Energy at 1900 ft-lbs from a .43-caliber would have sufficed — IF placed where needed! My calculations say that’s good enough for an 800 lb bear — IF a hardcast with a flat meplat or a flat-tip solid is placed where needed! That is a BIG bear! But not from a revolver! But two quick shots from a .44 mag handgun should do it. There is a significant difference in effect between a 300gr at 1200 fps and a 300gr at 1700 fps! And range is a deciding factor as well.

Would I have been carrying a .357 magnum in a revolver for self-protection on those remote trails, or in baiting, if it were legal? As a replacement for my Ruger 96-44? “NOT ON YOUR LIFE”, if I valued it!

In the pic below (far left), my oldest son was home on furlough from Africa where he was a licensed resident big game hunter. While home, he did a bear hunt with me and a couple of other friends. He was in a remote location in The Algonquin Highlands about three miles from my location. I shot a big bear on the second evening. He didn’t hear my shot. But walking one mile out of the forest alone from his location in the darkness to his pickup spot, he was stocked by a bear every foot of the way! He didn’t like that experience! And keep in mind, that he also had the experience in Africa of being about a mile from his village while hunting with a single-shot .22LR, when darkness fell upon him and his flashlight died! Oh, did I mention that lions were roaring within a quarter mile of him? And he felt nervous about a bear stalking him in the darkness? He was carrying his .356 Winchester lever-action pictured in the photo. I think he would have preferred to have had it in hand that dark night in Africa, don’t you think? Outside Algonquin Park he, at least, had 2550 ft-lbs on tap plus a flashlight!

My recommendations of a rifle for self-defence against bears, any bear? Even a 100 lb bear is potentially dangerous. A black bear has five times the strength of the average man of it’s weight and size.

Here are my recommendations for someone who really wants to know: having little to no experience with bears but some experience with hunting whitetails and smaller game. Also, having used a 12ga shotgun for various types of hunting. If you are a member at a range or have your own range on personal property were you can practice, or have done so, using larger bore rifles and 12ga slugs, then…

(One of my Marlins in .45-70)

First: Carry a rifle that’s relatively handy (short overall) and fast in repeat shots — a lever action or semi is recommended for those with little to no experience with bears. A BLR or AR in .308 Win are good examples.

Second: A rifle that you are very familiar with, shooting loads that are adequate yet don’t cause intimidation.

Third: A single-shot is more than adequate in a Big Bore, provided that a) You are confident with it, b) Additional cartridges are handy, and c) It is short, light and powerful where one shot “in the middle” will stop any bear. Then, if need be, a finisher can be applied. d) Don’t use the lightest bullets available for these cartridges. Remember that bullet construction suitable for elk should be used as well as sectional density. SD is an important factor for penetration and is determined by weight in relation to caliber size. That’s IN ADDITION TO velocity and construction.

With the exception of the lever-actions I’ve carried in hiking the trails of Haliburton Highlands, and the semi, I’ve also had several single-shots hung over my shoulder — but all in .45-70. I did so because of an abundance of confidence from a wealth of experience.

(a short ‘n handy NEF single-shot in .45-70. Wolf hunting on one of my favorite trails in Haliburton Highlands. There were three wolves that had walked this trail just before I arrived.)

The points in favor of a single-shot in a Big Bore, such as a .500 S&W, a 460 S&W or .45-70 are stopping power, handiness and lightness. These are ONLY recommended for those who have confidence from experience and will NOT be thinking about recoil.

Fourth: a lightweight slug gun in 12ga is a very potent weapon against any bear, provided that: 1- you are familiar with it; 2- not intimidated by its recoil, and 3- The slugs are not Foster type, but DGS (Dangerous Game Slugs — yes, it’s a brand made in Italy and loaded for police and military by several companies.) by Brenneke or Challenger (out of Quebec –they load the DGS) or of that type. If you are comfortable with iron sights, all the better for close encounters. Or choose a low-powered scope like a 2 – 7X or 1.5 – 5X, always set on the lowest in close quarters. Nothing wrong with a double SxS either, providing it has barrels of about 20 to 22″, and can shoot slugs.

(My slug gun with scope is an “ancient” bolt-action smooth bore that will put two of the 12ga Magnum Challengers — 504gr — at 1620 fps/2936 ft-lbs into less than 2-inches at 65 yards.)

Fifth: and last but in no way least important– always be legal no matter what, when or where you are carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm.

There you have it: a rifle or shotgun for protection against bear attacks (any bear):

1 – Short and handy
2 – Lightweight
3 – Big Bore recommended (including a 12ga slug gun)
4 – Quick follow-up if needed, or confidence requires it. Not bravado, but confidence is a key factor.

’til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

9.3 x 62 Mauser tidbits

A “tidbit”, according to my NEW WORLD DICTIONARY of The American Language, is “a pleasing or choice bit of food, news, gossip, etc.”. I suspect, however, that “the pleasing or choice bit” depends largely on who is eating the food or listening to the news or gossip. Since I don’t deal in gossip, as that’s mostly hearsay and fabrication, what follows might be pleasing news to those who want to know about the potential performance of the historic 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

It’s been nearly a year since I’ve specifically written anything new concerning this great cartridge and/or the rifles in which it is currently chambered. It might be considered good news — at least from my perspective — in mentioning that I’m receiving an increasing number of queries over the performance I’m getting from my rifle, which appears credible to some and contrary to expectations for others.

(In this pic, I was cautiously approaching a bear bait on full alert because a bear had been spotted in the bush just over my left shoulder. The rifle is my Tikka in 9.3 x 62.)

Whatever the case, the 9.3 x 62 Mauser has finally found a home in North American hunter’s collections of rifles for big game.  On one forum, one collector of rifles pontifically made this proclamation: “It’s a fad!” Maybe for him that could be true, and perhaps he has collected many because they were at the time of his aquisitions, likewise considered “fads”. Of course, we all know there are people like that — that just have to have what’s “new” or different to stay with the “flow”.  Some of our middle class just want to try something different to see if it is “better than” what they already have. I see that as legitimate if it’s “affordable” with an honest interest and desire to improve or upgrade, in this case, ballistic performance. I’ve been guilty of that one myself. But just to be able to say, “I’ve got one of those also”, to look intelligent or “with it”, in my view is not the best or smartest of motivations.

However, from the amount of apparent sincere interest I’m receiving in regard to the best performance safely possible from a newly manufactured 9.3 x 62, I’ve concluded that such an appeal to a rifle cartridge far exceeds mere curiosity.

Today, with many elite suppliers of rifles chambering for the distinguished 9.3 x 62 Mauser cartridge, it’s obsolescence will be far from the minds of those who invest $2500 to $4000 to possess one.  In at least two of our main purveyors of high end firearms in Ontario,  names like Sauer and Verney-Carron are in stock chambered for this enviable cartridge. In addition, Zastava, Sako, CZ and Tikka all import rifles into Canada chambered for the 9.3 x 62. And Ruger has produced their No.1 in runs for both the 9.3 x 74R and the 9.3 x 62.

Did you know that it’s now possible for handloaders to safely surpass ancient factory loads by upwards of 200 feet-per-second? I’m not speaking of the lightest bullets in 9.3mm, but 285s and 286s, the bullets that bring the very best from this cartridge, and that won it’s fame in Africa! That put’s it squarely in the domain of the equally famed .375 H&H! Yes, I well know that such a statement will rankle the ire of some, but facts don’t lie! This is in no way intended to lower the esteem well deserved by the .375 H&H. Nor is it meant to grant undeserved status, by a “coat-tail” effect, to the well respected 9.3 x 62. Rather, my aim is to present this cartridge, and the rifles that chamber it, in a levelheaded manner that is consistent with current facts! Why? Because there are still doubters and naysayers who claim that it’s “just another cartridge” with “ho-hum” ballistics.

(This is just one of many recordings of the muzzle velocity I’m getting from the 286 Nosler Partition. Adding 9 fps for correction to muzzle and the answer is 2622 fps/4365 ft-lbs.)

My concern is not over the uninformed opinion of those who tell the truth that it’s just their opinion, rather it has to do with misinformation coming from three sources: 1) Those who have experience using it for perhaps many years, but only having knowledge of its ancient (original) ballistics, and 2) Recent owners who play with it as another “toy” while showing pics of how accurate their rifle is in using weak or middle-of-the-road ballistics, having never really tested it’s mettle “in combat” against real heavy and/or dangerous game! And 3) Finally, the most obstinate, in a negative sense, are those who obfuscate matters by claiming that nothing more is needed than original factory ballistics — and they like the “mild” recoil! But, not only that, in addition the claim is made that the hoary 9.3 x 62 is good for big game (in North America, spell that by “moose”,”elk” and “bear”) to a maximum of 200 to 250 yards!!

THAT is incompatible with hard evidence obtained in multiple tests that I have conducted. It’s not that I think long-range shooting of large animals is a common event in either Africa or Alaska, and perhaps 200 yards will cover most of it, especially where PHs and guides micro-manage finite details. But that’s not exactly the point… THE point being that when a .338 Win Mag or a .375 H&H are said to be excellent for Plains Game to 400 meters (440 yards) and the 9.3 x 62 ONLY to 250 yards, that does really irk me!

If that were true, I’d choose a .35 Whelen, a .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H, or Ruger! I can’t help myself in setting records straight! I’m intolerant of duplicity and disingenuousness (hypocrisy and insincerity)! There’s too much of that on the forums… and in both religion and politics.

Now, to come down from my pulpit, let’s look at some facts: I’ve already made some comparisons of the 9.3 x 62, in a modern rifle employing modern components, at a reasonable MAP of 64,000, with the .338 Win Mag and .375 H&H in past blogs. Let’s do that now in regard to another medium cartridge that’s somewhat less available — really, no longer available in factory form, but obtainable in custom makeup — the very good .358 Norma Magnum.

in the April, 2017 edition of HANDLOADER Ammunition Reloading Journal, Terry Wieland does a decent writeup on the .358 NORMA Magnum, in which he refers to it as “The Heavyweight “358 NORMA”. I bought the magazine “off the shelf” at Canadian Tire because of that article. Terry is one of the top writers in that business, in my view. But what really interested me was not so much his creative perspective of it’s history, but the reloading info he incorporated from his own “Select Loads” that combined his comments on all ten of them. At least three were handgun bullets in .357″. The other seven were made specifically for various rifles that had a .358-inch bore. His comment on the last, a 280gr Swift A-Frame, was, “Moves the .358 Norma into the heavyweight division.”, having analogous reference to the sport of boxing. The rifle used in testing was a Schultz & Larsen with a 23″ barrel. The 280 Swift AF had a muzzle speed of 2455 fps/3747 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.

I found that interesting because I’ve always thought that a .358 Norma Magnum would make an excellent medium. But reloading manuals don’t do it many favors. As explained by Wieland, that is because there are very few factory rifles that were sold. In addition, Norma sold reamers and brass, but it was up to gunsmiths to decide on freebore, meaning while there was a CIP standard for pressure, there was no way for those who produce reloading manuals to know how much powder could be used in individual rifles to attain CIP standard PSI. That is, unless they were using Norma factory loads for their 250s, which the author did use. Yet, he had nothing for comparison for the 280gr Swift as Norma didn’t load that one in their factory ammo. The 250gr Norma factory load is listed at 2790 fps/4320 ft-lbs from a 24″ barrel, which makes sense. So it’s fairly evident that some manuals have introduced relatively low-pressure loads as maximum. For example, the Nosler manual #6 presents a best max load for their 250gr at 2628 fps/3833 ft-lbs from a 24″ Lilja test barrel using 72grs of IMR4350. That, in my view, is seriously under par for that fine cartridge by nearly 200 fps! Why that was done, I have no idea, but that gives a very bad impression of that rifle cartridge’s potential!

My 9.3 x 62, with a 22.44″ Sako match grade barrel, will trounce the 280gr A-Frame, as reported by Wieland, by nearly 200 fps even though it’s a 286gr Nosler Partition vs. the 280gr! And, more than that, it’ll shame the numbers in Nosler’s #6 manual by firing the 286gr as fast as the .358 NORMA can muster the 250gr Nosler Partition out the muzzle of the 24″ Lilja barrel. That is, IF those sets of numbers from Wieland and Nosler are representative of the .358 Norma’s potential.

Of that, I’m dubious.

However — it does speak to the issue of what the RIGHT and BEST powder employed in a serious medium-bore cartridge can wonderfully achieve with both knowledge AND experience. In this case, I’m making reference to the proven performance of my own 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

In speaking of proven performance that excels, the RIGHT and BEST gunpowder for the 9.3 x 62 is NOT RL-15, H414, IMR4895, IMR4064, W748, or any other medium burning-rate powder. The one exception MIGHT be 2000MR which has shown very good results for a few handloaders.

The one-and-only rifle powder that excels all others, including Big Game, is RL-17. Nothing is comparable or it’s equal. Period. Not that I’ve tried every thing out there, but I’ve done more than enough handloading of mediums in my time to know what I know, and what I do know is that RL-17 is capable of transforming the grand-old 1905 creation of the Berlin gunsmith, Otto Bock, into a cannon that defies comprehension — and I’ll stand by that statement based on sound experience.

A week ago, I wanted to give the 320gr Woodleigh PP another try at our range. I finished the season last fall at the range attempting to get close to the ballistics attainable from RL-17 from about the same amount of H414 powder as I used of RL-17.

On November 2, 2016, I fired two identical loads using 65 grains of H414 behind the 320 Woodleigh. Results were 2305 and 2280 fps into 0.625-inch at 100 yards. Very good accuracy, but poor ballistic performance compared to RL-17 in June and July of last year, where 66 grains of RL-17 were giving over 2450 fps with nary a sign of excess anything. I actually went all the way to 68 grains of RL-17 without a hint of excessive pressure! Would you believe (probably not) that MV was over 2500 fps! But, sadly, the accuracy wasn’t what was needed to fulfill it’s potential. So I tried H414. Accuracy very good, but ballistic potential far, far below the 286 Nosler. During last winter, as I was becoming increasingly bored, I began to plan for more trials of H414 and RL-17 under that 320 Woodleigh before I gave up on that bullet completely. Back to the drawing board…

Ahem… it will be one week tomorrow, as I started to explain a couple of paragraphs ago, I fired three (3) of six (6), I’d put together a few days earlier. Since last fall’s load of 65 grains of H414 seemed rather anemic to me, I loaded two with 67 grains and two more with 68 grains of H414 (remember, I’d gone all the way to 68 of RL-17 without any hint of pressure concerns — and H414 is listed as about equal to IMR4350 in burn rate, as is RL-17). But, last fall, I had shortened the COL of the H414 load to 3.33″ instead of 3.37″ which I had been using for all the heavies. And I got better accuracy, thinking that a shorter COL may have had a part in that. So, those loads of 67 and 68 grains of H414 wouldn’t allow compression more than a COL of 3.355″. Also, I loaded two of 65 grains of RL-17 at a COL of 3.315″, thinking that maybe a shorter COL with that bullet and powder might be just the ticket wanted for accuracy purposes (my goal is always MOA or better IF the velocity is what I have in mind.).

By the way, I only load two of the 320 Woodleighs for each particular powder charge because experience has taught me that on the whole, at that stage of matters, two will tell me if a particular load has potential, or not. Also, bullets of that nature are VERY expensive! For a box of 50, shipped from Eastern Ontario, plus tax, exceeds $100 in total cost! That’s $2.00 per shot for bullets alone, aside from other related expenses. And, I’m doing all that without sponsors simply to have information to pass on to others — mostly, though I also have an appetite for that knowledge as well.

I wasn’t at the range just to test “new” loads for the 9.3, but primarily to sight-in my new rifle, a CZ 455 LUX in .22LR that had been presented as a gift to me by son Phil several months prior. After having sighted that rifle, and then fired some warm-up shots, I turned to the Tikka in 9.3. The first two shots fired were the RL-17 loads of 65 grains each under the 320 Woodleigh. It was cloudy and just a few degrees above freezing. Those two shots went into 0.8125-inch at 2415 and 2416 fps. Corrected to muzzle they make 2425 fps/4178 ft-lbs. 66 grains last fall gave 2464 fps with one fps spread! Quick Load predicated that 63,980 psi would produce 2462 fps from the 320gr Woodleigh using RL-17 from my rifle with it’s 22.5″ barrel and COL of 3.37″.
.
Here’s a tidbit: Only RL-17 has recorded that kind of results… nothing else, to date, comes close. Not even H414. And, oh… 67 grains of H414 recorded 2367 fps corrected to the muzzle, and I only fired one because that was too “hot” for that amount of H414! How did I know that? Signs! The extractor left a scrape mark on the head and bolt lift was a tad “heavier” than normal — never saw or felt those signals while using even 68 grains of RL-17 at over 2500 fps! The final 67 grain load and the 68 grain loads of H414 have had the bullets pulled and the powder dumped. That just goes to show that one gunpowder in the same “burn rate” as another might give different results in the extreme! (See my recent series on Variables in the application of rifle propellant.) While 65 grains of H414 gave good accuracy behind the 320 Woodleigh, average corrected MV was only 2305 fps. Two grains more (67) added about 60 fps but was unsafe in my estimation based on certain criteria. On the other hand, 65 grains of RL-17 granted 2425 fps (average corrected) with good accuracy from a relatively mild load… Which powder would you use? I tried three more of that load (65 grains of RL-17) behind the 320gr yesterday that gave good results.

From my experiences to this point, plus technical matters, I consider the 286 Nosler Partition the best overall choice for the 9.3 x 62 Mauser, if one bullet would be chosen over others. It has excellent velocity and accuracy from my rifle, plus the construction guarantees at least a 70% weight retention on impact with heavy and potentially dangerous game. It is like (in comparison) a 300gr in a .375 or a 200gr in a .300 magnum. That is in getting the best overall that each has to offer. I consider the 320gr Woodleigh as a speciality bullet for something like Cape buff or, perhaps, giant moose in Alaska at ranges less than 300 yards. I’ll not be testing it further, except possibly on a future moose hunt if that comes up. But even then, I’d consider the 286 Nosler the better choice for Canada moose.

I just thought some of you might want to know some of those 9.3 x 62 tidbits…

The handloads that I have safely used in my 9.3 x 62 are NOT recommended loads for anyone else’s rifles. They represent my honest experience. You alone are responsible for your own safety.

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL