This brief series has never been intended to meet all expectations of readers or present all possible combinations of bullets and rifles for bear hunts. It is a view based on some personal experience and analyses.
The rifles and bullets presented, including the ballistics, are from rifles I’ve owned and used in black bear hunting, and in some cases moose hunts as well. I don’t claim expertise in regard to grizzlies or brown bears, as I’ve never hunted either. But from extensive reading and logical analysis, I entertain no doubts whatsoever that the rifles and ballistics presented thus far would be entirely adequate for any bear at any time, anywhere. But, I would choose a premium bullet in the majority of probable scenarios.
In this final part, I’ll talk about two big game rifles that I currently use in both bear and moose hunting. And either could effectively be put to good use in North America on anything from deer to Alaska-Yukon moose — all within range of course. That’s not to suggest that they are the best, or better, that anything else. Yet, they are “hand-picked” and personal favorites. One is capable of a bit more than 4300 ft-lbs at the muzzle shooting 286gr Nosler Partitions, and the other over 5000 ft-lbs from a variety of bullets from 300grs to 500grs. One feature that I like about each is that through the fine-tuning of handloads they can still be useful and effective when reduced by 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle.
The T3 TIKKA in 9.3 X 62 Mauser
Habitual followers of these blogs already know that a fair amount has been written about this rifle and its ballistics. Nonetheless, I’ll briefly review.
It was purchased from one of the largest dealers in Canada, and perhaps one of the largest in North America, in the Spring of 2011. At the same time and place, I had the option, for about the same cost, of a Remington 700 in .338 Remington Ultra Magnum (RUM) with a 26″ stainless barrel and action, plus a grey/black laminated stock. Ballistics would have been similar to my former Browning A-Bolt SS (LH) re-chambered to .340 Weatherby from .338 Win Mag. So I would have been familiar with the RUM’s ballistics. But it seemed heavier than my former .340 WBY.
The T3 TIKKA was both shorter and much lighter with its black synthetic stock, shorter barrel (22.4″) and shorter action (.30-06 length). I compared them side by side, holding the TIKKA in my left hand and the RUM in my right. Immediately, the decision was made for the T3 — it really wasn’t much of a contest as I already knew that the RUM would shoot “flatter” but the 9.3 X 62 would make a bigger hole while hitting just as “hard” with a heavier and wider bullet. The choice was made based on a)handiness and b)weight, knowing that the difference in real ballistics was minimal, and c)Overall costs. The 9.3 X 62 had just been lowered in price by $150! Also, d)Cases for handloading would always be available (they could be made from .35 Whelen or .30-06 brass in a pinch even though the correct 9.3 X 62 case has 10% greater volumn), plus, the amount of powder used would be 2/3 that of the .338 RUM, and the RUM would need that 26″ barrel to effectively use all that powder — about 100 grains!
The 9.3 X 62 has been mostly used in bear hunts over bait, and so far has finished off a wounded bear of a friend and a 6-footer last September that I shot (once) with a 286 Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle at over 2600 fps. It was a frontal-chest hit at 68 yards from a tree stand. The bear went down over an escarpment and was found dead at the bottom.
The T3 TIKKA in 9.3 X 62 bear load (could also be used on moose to 500 yards):
Bullet: 286 Nosler Part./Caliber = 9.3mm/.366″ SD=.305/BC=.482
Zero:200yds any bear, anywhere/250yds for moose/100yds for tree stand bait hunting.
MV = 2622 fps/4365 ft-lbs/107 ft-sec mom. -1.75″ traj.
50 = 2534 fps/4078 ft-lbs/104 ft-sec mom. +1.52″
100 = 2448 fps/3806 ft-lbs/100 ft-sec mom. +3.42″
150 = 2364 fps/3549 ft-lbs/ 97 ft-sec mom. +3.88″
200 = 2282 fps/3305 ft-lbs/ 93 ft-sec mom. +2.78″
250 = 2201 fps/3075 ft-lbs/ 90 ft-sec mom. +0.00″
300 = 2121 fps/2857 ft-lbs/ 87 ft-sec mom. -4.57″
350 = 2043 fps/2651 ft-lbs/ 83 ft-sec mom. -11.07″
400 = 1967 fps/2458 ft-lbs/ 80 ft-sec mom. -19.65″
450 = 1893 fps/2276 ft-lbs/ 77 ft-sec mom. -30.49″
500 = 1821 fps/2105 ft-lbs/ 74 ft-sec mom. -43.74″
Elevation: 1200 ft/Temp. 59*/BP=98.5/AD=.58
There are some variables to the above numbers depending upon elevation, temperature, bar. pressure and atmospheric density, especially elevation. 900 to 1400 feet elevation is fairly normal for where most of my big game hunting occurs. Atmospheric density is about average at .58 unless it is raining. In the dry summer heat it would be closer to .45 to .52.
You will notice, if familiar with 9.3 X 62 factory ballistics, that these are attained at 150 yards rather than at the muzzle. There are several reasons for that, of course. First – It is a new (modern) rifle that can readily handle the same psi as any modern magnum, such as a .300 Win Mag or .338 Win Mag at 64,000 psi. Second – I can seat bullets to a COL of 3.37″ rather than the standard 3.29″. And the most important third reason is the powder – RL-17 that gives an additional 160 fps over RL-15 at what appears to be even less pressure.
This is my personal load for my rifle. I present it as fact, not as a solicitation for anyone else to try to attain or duplicate. From all physical evidences it appears to be no more excessive than any loads I’ve formerly used in my 7mm magnums, .300 magnums, .338 magnums, .375 magnums or .458 magnums.
That’s not to declare it to be the “ultimate” or “best” load. I have a few others for that rifle that are very accurate, including one employing the 286gr Hornady with which I terminated the wounded bruin. It was leaving the TIKKA at about 2400 fps. That will do for most things. But if I were to leave for another moose hunt in the far Northwest of Ontario this coming fall season, knowing what I now know about the above load and the very mixed terrain up North, it would be the load presented above that could do the job on any moose out to 500 yards. And that possibility could exist in that region with many lakes and clear-cuts.
And, the above load would work on any bear anywhere, anytime. But it would be sighted at 150 to 200 yards rather than 250. Last year, over bait at about 70 yards, it was sighted dead-on at 100, and the bullet hit where aimed.
I’ve read what others have had to say about the recoil of a 9.3 X 62. Mostly, it’s from rifles that are at least 1-pound heavier, or more, and ballistics near factory specs. In such a scenario, recoil is in no way similar to a .30-06, as some claim, but about the same as a normal weight .300 Win Mag. But by adding 250 fps, burning 20% more powder and lessening the overall weight by at least one pound, the recoil becomes more like a .340 Weatherby, or about 50% more than a .300 Win Mag. So such ballistics with their counter-reaction isn’t for every hunter! The .340 Weatherby delivers more recoil than a .375 H&H with heavy loads, but significantly less than the .416 magnums. The .340 Wby. is about midway between the .375 H&H and a .416 Remington in normal weight rifles for those cartridges. That never bothered me because I was shooting a lot of rounds from it and others with even more recoil.
The above load in my T3 all-up weighs 7.6 lbs, making about 48 ft-lbs of recoil. My .340 Weatherby at about 1-pound heavier was hitting back at me with 54 ft-lbs.
Several factors lessen or enhance felt recoil, including how much practice time we’ve put in, overall weight of firearm, amount of powder used and weight of bullet. Also, barrel length, balance of rifle and shape of stock. Then add how we handle the rifle when the trigger is squeezed. And the psychological factor. If we fear it, it may (or may not) hurt.
The Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (long-throat)
Pic: the header
Case: .45-70
Bullet: 300gr TSX
SD = .204
BC = .234
Zero: 200 yards
MV = 2720 fps/4927 ft-lbs/117 ft-sec mom. -1.6″ traj.
50 = 2537 fps/4287 ft-lbs/109 ft-sec mom. +1.06″
100 = 2362 fps/3716 ft-lbs/101 ft-sec mom. +2.35″
150 = 2194 fps/3205 ft-lbs/ 94 ft-sec mom. +2.08″*
200 = 2032 fps/2750 ft-lbs/ 87 ft-sec mom. +0.00″
250 = 1878 fps/2349 ft-lbs/ 80 ft-sec mom. -4.19″
(The 300gr TSX load for the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT)
This load will be used in this September’s bear hunt. It is restricted to 250 yards because of the relatively poor BC and it’s a very tough bullet that may not give any expansion beyond 250 yards. And zero will be 135 yards rather than 200. The reason is that my bait setup will probably be close to that distance.
At 150 yards that load is good for any bear up to approximately 1350 lbs based on my formula as a guideline (found in the 1st blog in this series–click on the 3 on calendar above).
There are many other loads for this rifle that are sufficient for anything up to elephant, including a 350gr TSX at 2550 fps, a 350gr Hornady at 2250 fps, 350gr Speer at 2500 fps, 405gr Remington at 2165 fps, 400gr Barnes Buster at 2350 fps, 480gr Hor. DGX at 2160 fps, 450gr A-Frame at 2317 fps and a 500gr Hornady SP Interloc at 2200 fps. In addition, it can make over 2400 fps with a premium 400gr such as the A-Frame.
But my bear load for the up-coming season will be the above load at anything up to 175 yards, depending on where the bait and stand will be located. That isn’t an absolute maximum load, but close.
(This area is within a few yards of where my stand and bait set-up will be located in 2014)
This rifle is good for anything in North America to larger moose-size at 400 yards with the right loads. It will never be a “flat-shooting” rifle because of the relatively poor BC of lighter bullets, and the heavy-weights (450s and 500s) can’t muster enough muzzle velocity. However, with practice time, and knowing trajectory there is plenty of smash for most large game to “whatever” range.
For example, starting my 465-grain hardcast at an easy 2200 fps, with a BC of .365, 200 yard zero they will “hit” at:
400 yards with a TE of 115 (2000+ lbs soft-skinned non-dangerous animal, like bison)at only -42″ trajectory, which can be easily compensated for in using a range finder.
500 yards with a TE of 93 (1675 lbs).
Trajectory aside, these numbers are far more than my 9.3 X 62, a .375 Ruger or H&H, or even hot-shot numbers like my former .340 Wby. or a .338 Lapua! Problem is, I don’t have a rifle range where I could practice for such trajectories. Ours is max at 300 yards. If I lived somewhere near the wilds of Northern Ontario, a place for practice would be natural. And I’d enjoy lobbing those 465s at whatever range! I have tried them at 300, so that’s how I know their BC.
Recoil from my bear load for 2014 will be just about the same as my last year’s bear load from the T3 TIKKA in 9.3 X 62.
That’s all for now on “BULLETS ‘n BEARS”.
(That’s my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT — I’m seated behind a bear blind in a “hot” location in Haliburton Highlands.)
Next up will be a short series on Handloading for Hunting. That will take up the month of April. After that I’ll be writing twice monthly from May through August. Reason being lots of outside activities: cleaning up around here, load development and practice, getting trailer ready for spring and summer living, scouting for bear, choosing location for stand and bait setup, vacationing, etc…. you get the picture. Plus, I’m still a pastor of a congregation — so all that, God willing.
Final thot: I came across this on a recently purchased coaster – “I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to BE.” by M. Rae
Shalom
BOB MITCHELL