What is the Best BIG-GAME Rifle? — P4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

What is the Best BIG-GAME Rifle? — P3

The date was the second week of May, 1989. The circumstance was in the middle of “nowhere”, somewhere in the northeast of our province, Ontario, where my hope was to shoot a black bear — my first. There were many “firsts” that spring. My rifle: an 1895 Marlin chambered for the well proven .45-70. Handloads: the 400gr Speer that was leaving the muzzle of the 22″ barrel at an average of 1865 fps. The area: barely outside the southeast corner of Algonquin Park. Ambient conditions: HOT, with swarms of biting (starving?) black flies! (Several, from south of the border, had never experienced anything like that, and decided “that experience” was not part of their expectations! ).

But despite the biting flies, I enjoyed those days but never scored on a bear. However, the next spring (1990) found me back with the same outfitter in the same general area. The rifle: The same. The load: The same. That time, however, I did score on a trophy-quality bear. The range was approximately 100 yards to the bait setup, and I waited until the bear presented a broadside shot… which happened almost immediately. The 400gr Speer hit exactly where aimed — just behind the right shoulder, midway up the body. The bear went over backwards and took off on a dead run… for ten yards where he piled up in a tangle of alders with all four paws pointing skyward. I paid the insurance from a standing position on the 12-foot high moose-hunting platform spiked to a huge hardwood where it separated into two large branches.

My first bear, but not my last. The last may be yet to come. My latest was in October 2015, taken at 87 yards with a single 250gr AccuBond from my Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62, leaving the muzzle at a tad over 2700 fps. In between those dates (1990 to 2015), I’ve shot several bears with a variety of rifles and cartridges, having hunted them each year from 1989 to 2017 with the exception of one calendar year.  In addition, due to health issues, I didn’t hunt in 2018. So far this year (2019), I’ve not hunted but plan to, God willing, in October – November.

So the number of bear seasons I’ve hunted from 1989 to 2017 number 27 calendar years, plus a few years where I hunted bruin both spring and fall, so the total exceeds 30. Of course, I didn’t take a bear every season they were hunted — I passed on some bears, and wounded a couple that were not found, and missed my shot on three others. But on average, I’ve taken a bear about every second year, though it didn’t always work out that way. By times I’d make a “run” on bears for two or three years in a row, then “nothing” for another two or three years.

But in that process I’ve learned what calibers work best, or better, from those I’ve tried. And, of course, over the years, including those mentioned, I’ve hunted other fauna like deer and moose, as well as smaller game. For example: I know from experience that I’d choose a .300 Win Mag over a .30-06 for all conditions where moose and whitetails might be hunted in the same season in the areas I’ve hunted them in Central and Northern Ontario.

NOTICE: I said what “I’d choose”, based on MY experience. You might be happier with something else. I shoot a .300 Win Mag as well as I shoot a .30-06 in a hunting situation. My longest “hit” from my .300 Win Mag was near 300 yards on a JACK RABBIT, and that was on my first shot! My .338 Win Mag (Browning A-Bolt SS) printed a neat cloverleaf of 3/4″ at 300 yards at our range using bench-rest style! I didn’t duplicate that, but it would shoot the same load at .5 MOA at the same distance on a regular basis! (That’s not .5-inch at 300, by the way!)

That’s not to boast, but to point out factually that I have more than a little experience with so-called “magnums” all the way to the .458. And 99.5% of the loads were handloads, or “hand loads”.

Now as to the arguments in favor of the .458 Winchester Magnum being MY first choice as a one rifle for all big game. Notice again: It would be MY first choice, knowing what I now know in using it with handloads compared to others I’ve used with handloads, under these terms and conditions:

1 > world-wide hunting of BG, including the African DG, but N.A. in particular.

2 > as a younger man.

3 > as a handloader.

While I have fired mega-loads from the three .458 Win Mags I’ve owned since January 1993 — the first one purchased proved it’s worth on September 28 of the same year. Within a couple of weeks, the load fired on Sept 28, ’93 went on a moose hunt, as backup in N. Ontario. It turned out that due to the tail end of a hurricane, the 22″ Ruger 77 in .458 Winchester Magnum got carried more than my “main rifle”. On the 28th it fired three 500gr Hornady RNs into 1/4″ center to center at 100 yards! It was a single ragged hole! (I’m sure you can find someone who can explain how to measure 3 shots into the same hole from bullets that are .458″ in diameter!) It wasn’t the hottest load from H4895 at a little under 2000 fps, but it sure was “magic” in my view! I loaded up fifteen of those for that hunt. But, of course, the moose didn’t cooperate due to trees crashing in the forest every so often! But I’ve never carried anything before or since in which I’ve had more confidence for moose under those physical conditions, aside the storm. Recoil was my last consideration — in fact it never was any consideration at all. The rifle ready to shoot was around 9.3 lbs with scope and ammo, and the same length as a Rugger 77 in a 22″ .30-06. I had traded a rifle for it with no money involved.

Later, it went on a bear hunt and the 350gr Speer at 2345 fps flattened a bear at 75 yards. The damage was awesome in a going away shot. I’d owned at least a couple of .45-70s prior to that, and so was not “overwhelmed” by such an experience. But I was “sold”on Big Bores for bears; at least two in the salt from .458” projectiles — a 400gr and a 350gr, both from Speer.

In between the first and the current, I owned a CZ550 with a magnum action and  25″ barrel made in the Czech Republic. With that one from 2007 to 2011, I went to school on the possibilities of a .458 Winchester Magnum. For instance, I found that the 500gr Hornady could be safely driven from the muzzle of the 25″ barrel at 2200 fps, or more, from at least four powders: H335, H4895, AA2460 and AA2230; and all that within SAAMI COL at 3.34″. Of course, the action and chamber allowed a COL of up to 3.78″ for the long monolithics, if wanted, surpassing the .458 Lott!

In all, I developed loads for most of the following bullets. But the one that intrigued me for our game (moose, deer and bear) was the 350gr Barnes TSX at 2750 fps/5876 ft-lbs that shot into MOA. I had confidence in it to 400 yards for moose (at above 1600 fps impact — enough for expansion according to Barnes).

Currently, since August 2018, my .458 Winchester Magnum is a Ruger No.1 Tropical (Pic on the header). I started shooting it with known handloads from that date. Of course, winter had intervened before starting up again in late April of this year. In all I’ve fired it over 130 times employing 11 different bullets from 500s on down to the 300 TSX, using several different loads for each bullet, two brands of cases and seven distinct powders. One primer throughout has been employed, the WLRM.

The following is representative:

300gr TSX at up to 2980 fps/5915 ft-lbs from H4198

350gr TSX a very good load at 2760 fps/5919 ft-lbs from H4198

350gr Hornady at 2510 fps/4895 ft-lbs from H4198

350gr Hornady at 2000 fps/3108 ft-lbs from RL-15

400-X bullet from Barnes at 2590 fps/5957 ft-lbs from H4198

405gr Remington at 2075 fps/3871 ft-lbs from RL-15

450gr Swift AF at 2414/5822 ft-lbs from H335

450gr TSX at 2402/5764 ft-lbs from AA2230

470gr hardcast at 2087 fps/4545 ft-lbs from H4895

480gr Hornady DGX at 2353 fps/5900 ft-lbs from H4895

480gr Hornady DGX at 1810 fps/3491 ft-lbs from RL-15

500gr Speer GS at 2312 fps/5934 ft-lbs from H4895

500gr Hornady at  2317 fps/5960 ft-lbs from H4895

 

Notes on the above and projected tests for the future:

1 > My Ruger #1 has a 24″ Mag-Na-Ported barrel, and the typical long throat of all .458 Win Mags, plus no magazine to constrain COL. So all of the above loads have had their bullets seated as long as practical. While I didn’t give the COLs of each, or charges of the various propellants, yet the Barnes monos and all the other bullets were seated from about SAAMI 3.3″ to a max of 3.71″ for the 450 TSX not crimped into the bottom cannelure. Crimped, they measure 3.68″. Those exceed the Lott at 3.6″. Others of the 500s equal or exceed 3.6″ in COL. I don’t need to crimp any bullet in the single-shot Ruger. And from hundreds of rounds through my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT, never was crimping an issue even though all bullets were seated no more than .25 – .30″. And never a problem with a bullet being, or becoming, “loose” in the cartridge. I employ the same practices for the Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 WM.

2 > All of the Barnes TSX bullets from the 500s, 450s, 350s and 300s, can be driven at an MV that will permit them to still exceed 1600 fps at 400 yards – the limit for expansion in big game proposed by Barnes. Even though their 500 and 450 will start much slower than the 350 or 300, they will retain the velocity much better due to better sectional densities and ballistic coefficients.

So in effect, one can tailor their bullet weight and MV to the game animal and expected range limit.

Some of the above loads are maximum, and some, obviously, are reduced loads.

3 > Down the road, God willing, I have expectations to produce several more reduced loads for the likes of wolf and deer in woodlands, such as the 300 TSX at around 2500 to 2700 fps, and a 350 Hornady FP around 2000 fps for woods hunting. Of course, there are many other possibilities as well, such as lobbing a 470 cast lead at 1250 or a 300 Hornady at 1600 fps. There really are few limits.

But from a 250gr Barnes all copper (made for the .45-70) poking along at 2200 fps to the Barnes 500gr solid moving out at the same speed, what is there left to quibble over?

Nothing in my estimation. So make mine a .458 Winchester Magnum for anything from gophers (good for practice) to the grumpiest, anywhere at anytime!

Next up: other choices in Big Bores and Mediums.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

What is The Best Big-Game Rifle? — P2

It has taken many years, but my experience, research and analysis have compelled me to choose particular cartridges and rifles for the pursuit of game from small to large, and in some cases, dangerous.

Notice, I said “cartridges and rifles”,  as I have believed from the beginning that is the proper order — first, the cartridge is chosen, and then the rifle in which the cartridge is to be chambered and fired. The cartridge, of course, determines the caliber, and the caliber defines the bullets.

A .30-caliber rifle cartridge — of which there are many — is defined as .308-inch in diameter, though the length of the bullet is determined by its weight and the material used in its construction. We know, for instance, that a lead-core bullet with a guilding-metal jacket will be shorter than one of equal weight constructed of pure copper/copper alloy assuming profile is the same or similar. The reason being that lead is heavier than copper. So, a .30-cal rifle, whether chambered in .308 Winchester or .300 Winchester Magnum will be limited in bullet weights from about 110gr to 200gr in the .308, and 110gr to 220gr in the .300 Win Mag. Yes, I’m aware that one could load a 220 in the .308 but that would hardly improve its usefulness due to limited case capacity. The upper end in useful bullet weight is usually considered to be a 200gr SP or RN at about 2500 fps max. On the other hand, a 220gr (Nosler Partition in particular) at 2800 fps is a very practical load for the likes of Alaska/Yukon moose, grizzly or brown bear. The .308 Win would be making 2775 ft-lbs at the muzzle whereas the .300 Win Mag would be putting out 3890 ft-lbs at the muzzle and 2760 ft-lbs at 300 yards if using the 200gr AccuBond! The .300 Win Mag has a 300 yard advantage over the .308 Winchester!!

The foregoing is presented to demonstrate that CARTRIDGE and CALIBER are distinct entities! They are NOT synonymous! For example: we could have a larger CALIBER, such as a .44 Rem Mag, that would be less effective on a mature bull elk, say at 250 yards, than a smaller CALIBER like a .280 Remington. So, I mention CARTRIDGE as of first importance, then the RIFLE in which it is to be chambered.

Many seemingly “fall in love” with a rifle without much thought going into the cartridge for which it has been chambered. Several years ago I had a very dear friend (now deceased). We often visited gun shops together. One shop in particular seemed to have a large number of good lightly used rifles — it was there that I purchased my first .458 Win Mag – a nearly new Ruger 77 at a bargain-basement price! My friend spied a beautiful Sako FS carbine, with a 20″ barrel — chambered in 7mm Rem Mag! He would have bought it on the spot had I not intervened and convinced him that it would be a very LOUD .270 Winchester! I mean, he was so captivated by its beauty — in his view — that any pragmatic considerations flew out of his head! He simply “loved” beautiful wood and metal!

I put CARTRIDGE first because in the end game that is what determines results in the field, whether we are hunting rabbits or Wood Bison.

Next in importance is the rifle.

There are multiple choices. Actually too many to identify here in our limited space and time. But once we have settled on the CARTRIDGE, then we can begin our search for the BEST RIFLE from which the bullet is to be fired.

The “best rifle” may mean several distinct things to different sportsmen or women. Among styles/forms of rifles there are: Bolt-action repeating magazine rifles; single-shot, break-action; single-shot falling block; lever action repeating with rotary clips, and lever-action repeating with tubular magazines, and finally: semi-autos military style, or semis of sporting style — they are repeating with magazine clips, usually.

Then the aesthetics: form should follow function, but often the reverse drives the bus — as in all biz, looks sell products! That’s why my friend almost desperately wanted the 7 Rem Mag in a Sako FS carbine. I know, because I’d done the same exact thing a few years earlier in choosing a Sako FS carbine in a .338 Winchester Magnum with its 20-inch barrel! What I had in ballistics was the equivalent of a 24″ .35 Whelen that would burn fifteen grains less powder, be much softer in recoil, and not as obnoxious in muzzle blast!  But I thought I had the answer to any ballistic question by saving four-inches of barrel! Put your hand before your face, with eyes wide open, spread your thumb and index finger by four inches! That’s how much we save in overall rifle length, and that is supposed to make a meaningful difference in a hunt? If it were today, I’d pass on the Sako FS carbine in .338 WM and choose what I did later: A 26″ Browning in .338 Win that would easily shoot a 250gr Nosler Partition at OVER 2800 fps!   My son’s 24″ Rem 700 would fire the same bullet at over 2700 fps with ease.

The RIFLE; the best one: Let’s circumscribe it by the following set of parameters. And let’s keep in mind that this one rifle is to adequately serve for ALL big game on our “bucket list” — with THE EXCEPTION of African DG, and even then it might prove its worth!

Of the five most important characteristics that should be found in a big-game rifle for all hunting of  soft-skinned game from 200 lbs to 3000 lbs, including DG, within that very broad potential world-wide list, let’s list them in a descending order of significance:

1 > the CARTRIDGE

2 > the RIFLE (including barrel contour & length, stock, sights, recoil pad, etc.)

3 > the STYLE (bolt-action, lever-action, single-shot, semi, etc.)

4 > the ERGONOMICS (how it fits and feels in handling and shooting)

5 > the WEIGHT (contributes to ergonomics)

Anything else is overall appearance, cosmetics, and non-essentials.

 

CARTRIDGE: My criteria for the cartridge of a single hunting rifle is (as already described) that it must be fully capable of cleanly dispatching any big-game animal I intend or hope to hunt on the North American Continent, or any other continent if I do my part.

It also must be reasonably priced and have sufficient components for handloading.

In addition to all that the cartridge must be versatile enough, through choices of bullets and powders, to be reasonably useful on the lightest of big game as well as the largest and toughest, within their potential ranges and conditions.

That’s a VERY tall order! And I have intended it to be because those are my personal expectations and goals for any BG rifle I own.

That’s why I earlier stated (in P1) that a .300 magnum would be a starting point for myself.

Some believe in owning a particular rifle for every job! I believe most hunting “jobs” can be effectively and efficiently done with a well-chosen single rifle!

While I don’t necessarily subscribe to all of Phil Shoemaker’s gun philosophies, I do agree with the sentiment he has so aptly applied to inquiring brown bear client’s question: “What rifle should I bring?” His invariable reply is: “Bring what you already have and are comfortable with.” He’s thereby NOT suggesting a .223 Remington! But Phil is an expert shooter of anything in handguns or rifles! Few, if any, can compete with him! That’s why I think he should temper some of his statements and recommendations.

(That’s the late Dr. Don Heath, PH and Doctor of wildlife biology who is^ shooting a large bull elephant with his 9.3 x 62 Mauser. He would have preferred his Big Bore in his hands at the time, but he was as comfortable with it as if using it on the smallest of antelope – a 25 lb duiker.)

The world’s large soft-skinned game animals have pretty much all been harvested in using a .30-06! And all of it in using a .300 Weatherby! HOWEVER!!! That isn’t saying ANYTHING about ranges or other physical conditions! Then, were those experts alone or accompanied by backups in PHs, scouts or friends? That would make (and has made) a HUGE difference for what single rifle cartridge I’d choose! It has never been (and will never be) a non-magnum .30-caliber! And even then a .300 magnum, if that’s all I had, would not be my FIRST choice!

I’d want a bigger bore, one that could at least throw a 250gr at not less than 2700 fps. And more is better in my view if we’re talking one rifle for the whole-wide world! When I had the .340 Weatherby, that came close — but my 9.3 x 62 will equal it in momentum all the way to 500 yards and makes a bigger hole!

The main issue being: to LEARN to shoot something like that without fear or developing a flinch! (And that’s another subject.)

One thing I’ve learned from experience: A bigger hole going in and coming out pumps a LOT MORE blood on the ground in a much shorter time than ANY .30-caliber or .35-caliber!

But a “bigger hole going in and coming out” assumes a cartridge potentially capable of throwing that big bullet fast enough to accomplish that feat at WHATEVER range we decide to squeeze the trigger; and the bullet must be not only fast enough, but tough enough to break big bones in the process!

I’ve therefore chosen the 9.3 x 62 as a MINIMUM; and the .458 Winchester Magnum as OPTIMUM!

Why?

Let me tell you why: In summary, it’s because no other cartridge can match its versatility! And I’ll prove that in P3.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL