The Ideal Weight of Your BIG BORE Rifle – P2

Having established in P1 that the ideal weight of any big-bore rifle depends on the individual shooter – their temperament, general healthy condition and experience – we’ll now move on to some specifics. Temperament affects general mindset over both one’s physical condition (regardless of age) and any other personal challenges – specifically in this context of a rifle’s weight and recoil.

< As previously published: a 500g Hornady RN at 2198 fps (instrumental). Corrected to MV = 2210 fps/5454 ft-lbs. The actual average weight of those was 503 grains. I was in my mid-sixties and weighed about 200 lbs. The rifle was my #1 Ruger in .45-70 LT (long throat) The load was 75 grains of H335, Rem nickel brass and WLRM primers. COL at 3.19″. Rifle weight = 8.4 lbs with scope only. Recoil = 73 ft-lbs. It was sometime in the month of April at my bear-bait site. Temp in the 50’s F. Shot from a standing offhand position at about 15′ from the Chrony. That number was NOT an anomaly as it had been shot at the range and also recorded. At the same time and place I fired a 450g A-Frame over 75.5 grains of H335 that recorded 2305 fps (instrumental), and corrected to MV = 2317 fps/ 5364 ft-lbs. Recoil wasn’t a major concern as I’d previously fired multiple heavy loads from that rifle. It stayed with me as my favorite until 2018 when it was swapped for the #1 Ruger in .458 Win Mag. But I did use milder hunting loads in it as well, such as a 300 TSX at 2650 fps and the 350 TSX at 2470 fps, neither of which were max loads.

I’ve studied and used practical psychology, and have been aware during most of the years of Christian ministry that, regardless of the system (and there are several in use for relationships, education and employment), humans are divided into four broad types of temperament, and each of these are again separated into four each making a total of sixteen – in a general, spectrum-like sense. So there are more than just two types: Introverted and Extroverted, or Type “A” etc. So whatever our temperament type (often referred to as “personality”) it mostly determines our outlook on life – relationships, education, jobs, etc., and even degree of success in whatever might be involved in just living.

Agreed, there are other factors such as parental modelling, cultural norms, education, religious training (if any) and associations, but in the end our fundamental temperament will incline us in one direction or any other. Some are more individualistic than others – they tend to be leaders rather than followers. We say, “They have a mind of their own”. To be honest, I tend to be more of that type than just a follower. Some, of course, are stronger in that tendency than others. In the firearms industry — hunting rifles in particular — we think of names like Townsend Whelen as a strong leader with entrepreneur skills. In fact, all successful entrepreneurs must have a “daring to take risks” propensity.

So how does your basic disposition affect the weight and thus the recoil of the rifle you are comfortable with? But really, “comfortable” isn’t appropriate in this context, is it? Rather, “at ease with”, “not troubled by”, or “not distressed by” might be better ways of expressing our dealing with heavier rifles that might also have “heavier recoiling effect”.

< That was my CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum. As seen in this photo it weighed about 11.5 lbs with four cartridges in the magazine. My partner (who took the photo) and I were on a moose hunt in the “Far North” of our Province of Ontario. I did a lot of walking and used the sling over my left shoulder for toting the rifle in more open areas. In tighter quarters it was in my hands with the left hand gripping the pistol grip and my right the forearm since I shoot from a left-handed position. Recoil was approximately 48 ft-lbs in firing the 350g TSX at 2700 fps. Neither the weight nor recoil were of any concern to me during the week-long hunt when we were on the move most of those hunting hours. I was in my seventies and weighed 190 – 200 lbs without clothes and boots. In this photo, all dressed for hunting and rifle, my feet, knees and legs were feeling the effect of about 225 lbs. All told, I walked several miles each day, and most of it wasn’t on trails – some through alder patches. I took breaks by resting on a bolder or deadfall, and at the end of each day’s hunt was ready for a meal and my tent.

It’s quite evident that those who contribute most of what appears on “BIG BORE” forums are “at ease with” shooting big-bore rifles all the way up to… what? For some they stop at the .375 H&H, referring to it as a “Big Bore”. For a handful, they have tried things like a .600 NE or .460 Weatherby which take you up around 100 ft-lbs of “kick”! And a half-handful beyond that still! I’m not among them, though when a bit younger I was tempted to have my CZ 550 in .458 Win re-chambered to .460 Wea. Mag. But I decided, after some sane reflection, that wouldn’t be a brilliant idea all matters considered! I was in my seventies, and what possibly could a .460 Wea. do that a .458 Win couldn’t? My temperament made that decision for me!

So why did you choose a BIG BORE? Or, why did you give up on one? Only you can answer that, but I think it might be of value for you to know why you did one thing or another.

Sometimes it’s a matter of economics, or it might be purely a practical matter – you simply don’t need one. But then, to be purely practical, how many rifles do we have in our safes, cabinets or closets that essentially do the same things? That’s “want” not “need”. So, let’s not kid ourselves by lying to ourselves (or spouses) that we “need” that extra .30-06! Or that “ultra-lightweight” .270! Instead of having a couple dozen that do the same thing as deer rifles, why not venture into a BIG BORE? Too heavy, some say?

Let’s keep in mind some details regarding a rifle’s weight and associated recoil effect: And I’ll start with an experience I had at a range many years ago. I was shooting a variety of handloads in my SAKO FS (20″) in .338 Win Mag. Recoil was up around 37 to 40 ft-lbs, and they were shot over my Chrony to record MV. A nearby fellow shooter was firing handloads from his short-barrelled (20″ or less), light-weight .300 Win Mag and asked if I’d fire one shot over my Chrony to check MV. Those were 180g. To put this in some perspective, My SAKO FS was not a “lightweight” at nearly 9 lbs ready to shoot with a 3 – 9 x 40mm scope. He didn’t know the exact weight of his rifle when it was handed to me, but with a synthetic stock and no longer than my SAKO, it felt like a “flyweight” of perhaps 6.5 lbs. I fired the single shot that recorded 3050 fps ( corrected to MV = 3058 fps), and it was the loudest and nastiest rifle I’d EVER fired to that point in time! Light and handy? Sure… but VERY impractical! I had earmuffs on and it was still very loud! I can hardly imagine what the “BANG” would be like in hunting “close quarters” (The excuse for such a “creation”!) . And the perceived recoil was far worse than my SAKO FS in .338 Win Mag!

And some calculations: The recoil from my .338 was, as stated, about 37 to 40 ft-lbs, depending on the actual weight bullet and load fired that day. That particular .300 Win Mag shooting a 180g at 3058 fps would have been about 43 ft-lbs, but it seemed worse than that because the speed of recoil was much faster than my .338 and little of that weight was at the muzzle end that allowed “muzzle jump”! So, he saved about 2 lbs in carried weight but increased recoil by 10 ft-lbs plus a noise-level increase of about 50%! Otherwise, with a “normal” weight .300 Win. Mag. of around 8.5 lbs ready, and a barrel of 24 – 26 inches, he’d not likely notice the recoil, and the noise level would have been more-or-less “normal”.

Several years ago I had a very good friend (a retired intermediate school principal) who hunted big game with me, and we often visited “gun shops” together. He loved pretty wood, and spied a short-barrelled bolt-action in 7mm Rem Mag and “fell in love” with it. I think it was a SAKO, but not absolutely sure of that. In any case, after debating and arguing, I finally persuaded him that it would be a VERY LOUD 7-08 Remington in ballistics!

Whatever the brand, gun companies cater to the whims of shooters, without conscience! That’s why lightweight rifles can be found everywhere in the market place, whether custom built or mass produced. So a generation of shooters/hunters tend towards lighter-handier rifles, either with less effective ballistics or more recoil – or both! As it concerns true Big Bores though, the trend is to call anything over a 7mm a “big-bore”. And it appears that’s conditioned by the recoil and noise factor of rifles like that lightweight .300 Win Mag mentioned above or the “want” of my friend for a too-short and light 7mm Rem Mag!

Of course, the deal is in marketing what hunters/shooters “think” they want! But the “thinking” part has little to do with it — it’s mostly an emotional response as with my friend who wanted that short-barrelled 7 Rem Mag because of it’s looks — which would have ultimately been left in the closet after one session at the range or a hunting trip where he squeezed the trigger without muffs on! I had a similar creation in the short-n-handy Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70 with the infamous ports! It went “down-the-road” about ten months later! That thing would “blow your ears off” without muffs. But the short 18.5″ barrel with the multiple round “ports” was a most unwanted contraption! Thankfully, Marlin ditched the ports in it’s next run.

< The Ruger #1 in 450-400 NE looks identical to mine in .458 Win Mag.

The reality of it all comes home in the choice of a true BIG BORE: .40 cal to about .500. Ruger had produced a #1 in 450-400 NE a few years back, and Hornady made brass, bullets and loaded ammo for it. It is said to be mild in recoil but effective on large and dangerous game. And that’s not just theory, it has been effective in that department for many decades. In a video of a British hunter, he used the #1 Ruger and Hornady factory ammo on a Newfoundland black bear. It worked well for that hunt, but that same ammo is claimed sufficient for Cape Buff in good hands. The 400g Hornady DGX or DGS at about 2150 fps/4105 ft-lbs… that’s about the starting point for a true BIG BORE and factory ammo. And recoil? Around 48 ft-lbs max, if we accept the 2150 fps for Hornady’s 400g in their manual, and 9.5 lbs for the Ruger #1. If you add some weight to that in additional ammo in a stock holder and a scope, then the “kick” could be reduced to around 40 ft-lbs; at a relatively slow speed of recoil. Of course, loads don’t always need to be maximum, ’cause a Big Bore firing a heavy, well-constructed (read: “appropriate”) bullet will kill anything from rabbits to bison with an impact of not more than 1000 fps. That could be a hardcast lead bullet of around 400g from a .40-cal or a 450g to 550g from a .458-cal departing the muzzle around 1300 to1400 fps. Recoil from a 9. 5 lb to 10.5 lb rifle? Very modest, indeed… 16 ft-lbs from a 9.5 lb rifle shooting a 450g at 1350 fps from a relatively light .458 Win Mag such as the M77 Ruger that I owned as my first, with scope and some ammo.

MV= 1350 fps

50 = 1280 fps

100= 1217 fps

150= 1162 fps

200= 1113 fps

250= 1072 fps (That’s adequate for up to a 1 ton bison when hit broadside through lungs far enough forward to take out some major arteries. Yes, it’s been done multiple times!)

Ambient conditions: 1200 ft, 59*F and 62% RH. BC = .350

So, what about mindset and physical status? And experience? These will greatly influence our thinking on the acceptable weight and recoil of any big-bore rifle.

Then again, I sometimes make loads that more or less simulate a lever-action .45-70 or even a front-loader, black powder big-bore rifle. Those extra two pounds? I’m “at ease” with that.

More comin’ – next time: Being “at ease” with a rifle’s weight and recoil – what is that? To quote an Alaskan resident who has by times used a single big-bore rifle for all hunting, including many deer, and in self-protection:

“Trick is don’t flinch. I know easier said than done much of the time. The secret is to shoot the 458 a LOT. Not just going outside and blazing away till a box of ammo is gone and a guy wants nothing to do with the rifle.

“It also helps if the only rifle a guy owns is a 458 Winchester and he’s broke and actually needs to get meat. Plus it helps if on occasion a guy has to shoot for his life. That puts a little recoil into perspective.”

“Cold Trigger Finger” (CTF) has been a heavy machine operator related to mining in Alaska. In P3 I’ll make some observations based on CTF’s Alaskan experience, where he still lives, works and hunts. CTF is his “handle” on the 24hr campfire forum. The quote is from the “Express Rifles and Big Bores Only” section, and “The great .458 Winchester Magnum” thread.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The Ideal Weight of your BIG BORE Rifle – P1

Of course there isn’t an ideal weight for a particular big-bore rifle, or ALL big-bore rifles. There are many variables that we need to consider.

The FIRST among them is the individual who owns and shoots them. There are numerous distinctions among shooters of BIG BORES that make pontifical pronouncements as to what a particular BIG BORE should weigh impractical. Shooters come in different sizes, physical conditions, strength, experience, age, health, natural ability and temperament.

The SECOND consideration must be the rifle itself, and the cartridge it fires. There are nearly as many distinctions there as in the variety and conditions of shooters!

< My former CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum. It had a full-length magnum action (permitting a 3.8″ COL) and a 25″ barrel. The scope was a fixed 4x by 21mm with a 5″ eye relief. The total package with four cartridges (it would hold five plus one in the chamber) was just over 11 and 1/4 lbs with extra metal in the forearm for strength. It’s overall (one word,not two) length was just over 46″. I never noticed the weight much, but the length was only noticed in travelling through alder patches where there was no trail. I was 74 years old at the time. < That particular moose hunt in 2009

But the first question to be answered is “What is a Big-Bore Rifle?” Thankfully, there are not as many credible answers to that question as in individuals who might shoot them. I’ve gone on record a couple of times in stating that in relatively recent history (since the introduction of smokeless gun powder), Big Bores normally start at .40-caliber, and on up from there to recognised/established calibers used on the African Big Five, ergo: the .577 NE. But also with a minimal muzzle KE of about 4000 ft-lbs. So I’ll stick with those parameters in these discussions. Obviously there is, and will be, significant distinctions between a Big Bore that produces little more than 4000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy from one that produces nearly 8000 ft-lbs of KE! And not just in the product of bullet impact on game, but the opposite and equal force of bullet momentum. Therefore, a rifle that “only” produces 40 ft-lbs of recoil will not have the same physical effect on the shooter as one that produces 100 ft-lbs of recoil! That is why the rifle producing 100 ft-lbs of recoil needs a muzzle brake and more weight, and/or a tough “nut behind the butt”! – to quote Phil Shoemaker.

So, having established some general parameters for the rifle itself, we go on from there to bring the individual shooter and suitable Big Bore together.

The SHOOTER

As it concerns true Big Bores, the shooter is NOT competing as a target shooter, but as a hunter or professional guide. (That’s NOT to say that a particular hunter using a Big Bore may not also engage in competitive shooting of firearms.) The physical conditions for using a Big Bore in hunting is rarely the same as in competitive shooting of a firearm. But competitive shooting may play a significant role in training for hunting with a big-bore rifle (If any of that makes sense to you.).

As mentioned, age, physical condition, mental state, experience and temperament all play roles in the ability to adequately manage a heavier rifle than “normal”, and endure without turbulence its recoil. That’s all very personal, and only the individual can decide (after some experience and use) their comfort level both physically and mentally. It’s NEVER a case of “one size fits all”.

Yet suggestions can be made, and that should be AFTER adequate trials and some experience. “Adequate trials and some experience” may simply be a single hunt on home turf. Or a few experiences at the range. On the other hand it could take a full season of hunting in which both ability and appreciation grows to the point of actually liking and accepting the rifle for multiple hunts, or turning away from it completely.< Developing loads for the CZ 550 and testing them in 2008.

When I bought my first 1895 Marlin in .45-70, I loved it for bear hunting, and later it became my primary rifle for whitetails also. Factory ammo was never used in that rifle and my hunting handloads were taken from Speer’s Manual # 11 – the top load of H322 behind their 400g. But 56 grains didn’t reach their book load, so I added one grain to 57 that nearly attained the book MV — just not quite at 1865 fps (instrumental). Back in those days I didn’t correct to MV. It turned out that 1865 fps was really 1882 fps when corrected to MV, which was very close to Speer’s results, but it took that 1-grain more than “the book”. The rifle plus ammo and scope was no “lightweight” at 8.6 lbs ready and with a recoil at 32.6 ft-lbs — all of which seemed “normal” to me at age 43 and 210 lbs, and in very good physical condition. Over the next twenty years I moved towards more powerful Big Bores with more recoil and weight. So I didn’t just jump into heavy hitters (at both ends) from the get go… It was a process over time, from which I’ve never looked back wishing for small bores or sub-mediums. Ergo, my “Blog about BIG BORES”.

< Age 43 and 210 lbs at 5′ – 9 1/4″ in bare feet.

Today, I’m within a month of 86 at 160 lbs and 5′- 8 1/2″ in bare feet! Despite that, my main rifle is the Ruger #1 in .458 Winchester Magnum, single-shot at 10.6 lbs with a Nikon 2 – 7 x 32mm scope, and four rounds of ammo attached: 1 in the chamber and 3 in a buttstock ammo holder. Recoil is, on average, about the same as the Marlin above. It is somewhat mitigated by the Mag-na-ports (15% is claimed) and much more by the overall weight. I’ve owned it since May, 2018, and fired more than 200 rounds at “full bore”, including 500s, 480’s, 450’s, 400’s, 350’s, and 300’s.

Right now, my hunting load for deer, bear and wolf is a 250gr Hornady MonoFlex at 2610 fps producing about 23 ft-lbs of recoil. Three shots at 50 yards made a ragged hole of sub-MOA. I hope to do some bear and wolf hunting til the end of November, and then to the end of the year for wolf. The rifle toted will be the 10.6 lb Ruger #1 in .458.

None of this is intended as boasting, but simply to emphasise once more that the weight of a rifle, and its recoil, is a personal thing. I have a much lighter medium-bore rifle suitable for any big game. It’s lighter by three pounds. Right now it’s in a shop for a muzzle break and will not be ready for a couple of months. I want to keep it at 7.7 lbs ready to hunt in deep snow. I use snow shoes, so lighter is better. But being “light”, I want to tone down it’s recoil without adding weight, so have decided on a “slim-line” muzzle brake. I’ll also be wearing electronic ear muffs.

All that to point out that there are ways and means of dealing with the weight and recoil of a BIG BORE. Muzzle brakes are common fare these days. So are less bulky electronic ear muffs. I recently bought some from Cabella’s at 40% off retail! My .458 also has the Mag-na-ports… in case you missed that! The electronic ear muffs will help nullify that feature while permitting amplified hearing of game. I’ve already tried “normal” muffs in my hunting area, that I use at the range, and that worked very well but they’re bulky and inhibit the hearing of any noises I might want to hear while hunting. I did own a set of electronic muffs many years ago, but they were very bulky and uncomfortable for hunting – and got “worn out”. These, recently acquired, are Walker Razor “slim-line” that appear ideal for my purposes – but yet to be tried in actual hunting scenarios.

God has been very good to me in permitting better health and physical strength than I ‘ve had for a couple of years – and much better than the vast majority of 86 year olds! And perhaps better than many 65 year olds! BUT! It’s also a temperament and mental attitude thing as well as physical. The one does greatly affect the other! I’ve mentioned this previously, but it does bear repeating:

I learned a great lesson from an 83 year old real estate salesman in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, just north of the Vermont border, in 1970 in my 36th year. Along with a 55 year old colleague, I was shopping for an old vacant farm where our mission could establish a Christian camp and conference center. The sales representative showed us several at which we explored a lot of grown over hilly acreage. We spent a full, long day at this in the heat of summer, and were exhausted! Our salesman was still fresh and wanted to show us more vacant farms! I asked “How are you able to keep doing this?” His reply was simple: “I’ve been doing it for 25 to 30 years!” My next question: “How long do you plan on doing it?” His reply, without hesitation: “I dunno, as long as I’m able, I guess!”

The weight of a rifle, whatever it is, seemingly becomes heavier as we age. That’s very simply because our physical strength has deteriorated along with a mindset of wanting to give up on anything that’s more and more of a physical challenge. Especially, is that true if there are chronic illnesses and/or pains. But the more we give in (a temperament thing) to those “feelings”, the worse it gets to the point of no return. We become housebound or, worse, bedridden! I know, because as a minister of God’s gospel, I counsel the partners of like situations – even today! A couple of years ago I could have become one of that number myself! But I refused to give up or give in – by the LORD’s help! And today I’m a happy camper!

I’ll be at the range, firing those unused .458 rounds at the end of the season or until it’s too treacherous to travel. I’ve already plans for the beginning of bear season on May 1st, 2022. And I hope that will be in baiting again! Of course, I know The LORD GOD ALMIGHTY well enough to be aware that it all depends on His will and sovereignty! That’s OK with me! But making plans over winter for spring hunting, gives life to the soul! I know where I’m going in the end, and I’m not troubled by that either. Nor do I assume the troubles of the world can be solved by my involvement or even anxieties. That’s God’s business — humanity has messed up and will only make matters worse! In the meantime, I’ll take life as I find it with joy and gladness til He comes or calls me home!

All of that having to do with my attitude toward life as I knew it would be temporary here – whatever might be involved, including hunting and shooting with rifles! And knowing God (NOT religion!) in a personal way, by trusting Him, adds hope, encouragement and strength that would not be experienced without Him!

Moses, in the Exodus, after crossing the Red Sea with about two million Israelites, at plus eighty years of age wrote a song to be sung and rehearsed by Israel for millennia to come: EXODUS ch 15: “I will sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. Both horse and driver he has hurled into the sea.

“The LORD is my strength and my defence; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God and I will exalt him.” –vs 1 – 2.

Next time: The BIG BORE RIFLE – P2 (Determining a suitable weight)

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Comparing Cartridges – Making Evaluations

One rifle cartridge holds 94 grains H2O to case mouth, and another holds 98 grains of H20 to case mouth; which will be the most efficient, desirable or powerful? More information wanted? One being a .458 Win Mag case and the other a .340 Weatherby case. I’ve handloaded both. Not just once but literally thousands of times for each – and not always with the same load each time.

In general terms, a straight-wall cartridge case is more efficient than a “bottleneck” case, other matters more or less equal, such as psi and barrel length in using the overall best powders and bullets in each. Why then bother with bottleneck cartridges? The short answer is that they can shoot their comparatively smaller bore and lighter bullets faster and further. Of course, that answer needs more details, but the large straight-wall case has other advantages: more powerful from less propellant and more effective on really large and/or dangerous game. And, of course, that answer needs more details as well for clarification, most of which I’ve done in times past.

For an immediate example, I know that the .340 Weatherby from a 26″ barrel can make upwards of 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle, whereas the .458 Winchester Magnum can produce upwards of 6000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle from a 24″ barrel. That’s from 82 grains of propellant for the .458 and 90.5 grains of the appropriate propellant for the .340. And that’s for starters.

While I’ve previously written on this topic a few times, yet the main emphasis in today’s media is long-range shooting and hunting. The long-range shooting part is a spin-off from military applications no matter how far back in history we may want to go! There’s no legitimate argument that’s sustainable against the history of firearms applications – they evolved due to wars, and accuracy at increasingly longer ranges was mandated in consequence of the opposition (whomever they were) going smaller in caliber with lighter and faster bullets. This gave the advantage of surer hits at longer ranges, so they commenced firing earlier and at greater distances than those who were still using black powder and musket balls.

However, our subject hasn’t to do with long-range target shooting, but increasingly longer ranges for hunting! Or so our sporting magazines and videos would have us believe. And it is true that more bullets are both manufactured and fired at ground squirrels and pronghorn than any other live animal. So these same bullets are loaded in factory ammo and handloads for practice and “fun” at both public and private ranges than any other type. Ergo: that helps keep ammo companies in business. It they had to depend only on producing ammo or projectiles for large bores they’d shortly go out of business. That is for large rifle bores, not handguns. Of course, sometimes they are the same ammo for rifles and handguns, but I think you’re smart enough to understand the point of this conversation.

My point is to question any great need for emphasis on “extra” long-range hunting of big game. How far is “long range”? That would greatly vary according to area as well as the hunter. In some places 200 yards may be “extra long”, as where I do 85% of big game hunts. When I hunted in the “Far North”, clear-cut logging was a factor and there was always the potential for a shot on moose beyond 350 yards under less than ideal conditions. Either you take the shot or go home without a moose! It was not like there were moose in herds like elk

< There is a bull, cow and a calf moose in this pic (in a rain storm). Much like when I shot my bull much farther north in our province.

< New moose tracks in the recently logged out area where I was deer hunting this past week. There were three sets: a bull, cow and calf. I fully expected to see them. However, moose hunting season was done two weeks prior, and I didn’t have a license anyway. But it was good to see wildlife moving back into an area after two years of logging. But in season, with a tag for one of those three, the longest shot possible would have been no more than 200 yards.

< This huge, sheer cliff is 20 feet tall and the most prominent feature of the logged out area. My .458 Win in the #1 Ruger is resting against it at the bottom for perspective. Many deer tracks, especially those of a really big buck, and moose tracks, that appeared to be made the previous night, were in view of this photo.

But anything on the far side of 400 yards would be long-range for me, even on a large animal. I’ve shot groundhogs at about 350 with a .223 and 6.5, and they’re very small, so I had to “get the range” by firing a couple of shots before I had a range finder, or even a spotter. But three factors enter the picture here: 1) It’s one thing to be able to “get the range” on small game or varmints by firing a few range shots, but rarely will a big game animal stand around waiting to get hit in the vitals if wounded or even completely missed! 2) A large game animal, like a bull elk or moose, are comparatively easier to hit in the vitals (assuming a proper rifle and load) at 350 yards than a coyote, for example. 3) The real point is, however, that most big game, and especially large game, are shot, on average, much more closely than 350 yards – less than 250 would be “normal”. Yet, as Hagel used to emphasise, we need to be prepared for the unusual, and even extreme conditions, not just the “average”- which, by the way, includes any abnormal or extreme numbers, like 25 yards to 600. Personally, I like to be prepared for the unexpected. So in my treks toward the “Far North”, I toted rifles like a .338 Win Mag AND a .45-70, depending on the location that could dramatically change in a single day’s hunt. Since I’d hunted that same vast area four times, I came to know what to expect, but on the first try I didn’t. So I took two rifles on each trip: one fired a straightwall cartridge and the other a bottleneck cartridge – a 45-70 and a medium bore magnum, or a .458 Win and a .375 H&H (On that trip the .375 never came out of its case!). And, I’ve been known to tote a .300 Win as a backup to a .458, and it also never saw daylight as the .458 can fire a 350 grain TSX like a .30-06 can shoot a 180gr.

< My former CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum. The moose load for “The Far North” of Ontario was a 350gr TSX at 2700 fps, like a 30-06 on steroids!

That’s to say that rarely is a bottleneck cartridge really called for if the intent is “average” hunting of big game. A 444 Marlin is more efficient than a .30-06, and fully capable of killing large game this side of 300 yards. And, it’s fully adequate with good handloads of taking the largest brown bear Alaska has to offer at ranges that most are taken. And I’m not speaking of Remington’s factory load of a 240gr, but a tough 300gr with a flat tip Buffalo Bore at 2200 fps. The case so loaded holds less than 60 grains of powder, at less psi than the .30-06, and much greater momentum. For a .30-06 to have the same momentum a 180gr would have to leave the muzzle at 3667 fps! That’s almost 1000 fps faster than possible! At 200 yards the 30-06 would need 2526 fps to match the momentum of the 444, but it only is making 2379 fps at that range when a 180gr NP is started at 2750 fps. So with less propellant and less PSI, the .444 Marlin has the potential of being more effective on large game than a .30-06 all the way past 200 yards!

The .45-70, from a 22″ Marlin, can make 4000 ft-lbs from a 400gr using 60 grains of AA2015 at 43,000 psi. That’s just over 2100 fps. The Ruger #1 in .45-70 can push a 400gr out the muzzle at nearly 2200 fps at about 32,000 CUP! That’s the older #1 Ruger before they shortened the throat. Mine, with the LT (long throat) would make 2400 fps from a 400gr at about 62,000 psi. All that from a .458″ bore and a straight-wall case of 2.105″, and 2.85″ COL. And the energy is equal to a .416 Rigby! And the Rigby case is enormous – 128 grains of H2O, and a COL of 3.75 Inches!

< Some loads for my former #1 Ruger in .45-70 LT

There’s a point beyond which cartridge case size and volume become redundant. That is in “small arms” for hunting purposes vs military arsenal for tank destruction! And we don’t need 50mm cannons for cow elk! Or even .50 caliber… .458″ is optimum; anything beyond that is superfluous, unless (maybe) in BP.

The .460 Weatherby? It burns 44% more powder, for 53% more recoil and 300 fps more velocity than the GREAT .458 Winchester Magnum! And it will do nothing more than the .458 Win Mag in harvesting the biggest and baddest except hurt you more! A muzzle break on the Weatherby? Yeah, mine has one too – oh, and that’s my Ruger #1 in .458 Win. My current load has 23 ft-lbs of push back… and is fully capable for a big moose at 250 yards, at about the same as a .30-06 in recoil – but with less PSI. Yet some say, “You carry more than you shoot”, so some prefer a rifle a couple pounds lighter? What are those sling swivels hanging fore and aft from a rifle for? Oh, a sling? We need to use them when “we carry more than we shoot”! It’s really a very neat tool that assists in accuracy as well! And, Ohhh… can a .30-06 also make 6000 ft-lbs of ME… about half that, eh? If that historic cartridge were a straight-wall case it would be more like the renowned .405 Winchester, a true big game cartridge that wasn’t simply adapted from military applications. It’s still a good BG cartridge, but not as good as the historic Teddy Roosevelt .405 Winchester for LG. Then, the .400 Whelen is nearly a straight-wall cartridge, and comes from the basic .30-06 case necked up to .411, and with an adequate shoulder for head-spacing, at modern pressure will exceed the ballistics of Teddy’s “Lion Medicine”.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser – one of the best All Purpose Cartridges

It’s been awhile since I’ve dedicated an article to this great all-purpose cartridge. It’s time for some reminders of why it is still active and popular, lest we forget…

The 9.3 x 62 is quite a bit older than I am, so that’s OLD! Created for European settlers in East Africa, in 1905 the Berlin gunsmith, Otto Bock, came up with what could be in our time a modern concept for a cartridge powerful enough for all African fauna. And he chambered the relatively new, and now famous, 98 Mauser action rifle for it – what a stroke of genius! It was made available to any and all European settlers at a very reasonable cost – compared to typical British and other Euro big-bore sporting rifles – and it more than proved it’s worth in the hands of farmers, hunters and sportsmen alike throughout Africa until German factories were destroyed as a result of their war effort. Then in 1935 Winchester chambered their famed M70 bolt action in the .375 H&H! While the extant 9.3 x 62 Mauser was still in use, both in Europe and parts of Africa, yet few new rifles were being made, and factory ammo was scarce. Almost immediately after WW2, Americans were making good money and some wanted to go on an African Safari. They chose the readily available and affordable .375 H&H. The 9.3 x 62 was still unknown to the average North American hunter. That’s a very brief summary of those events.

Fast forward: While a few “gunwriters” produced short articles on the 9.3 x 62 in some rifle/hunter magazines, yet the vast majority of “the potential market” was still very unaware of it’s existence. And to make matters worse, those few articles didn’t begin to reveal the 9.3 x 62’s true capabilities. Adding insult to injury, nothing was available in the typical American handloader’s guides with one exception: Speer! In their Reloading Manual number 11, pages 298 and 299 provide a short introduction and loads for their one 9.3mm bullet, a 270gr “semi-spitzer”, with two loads near 2600 fps – 60 grains of H414 @ 2583 fps, and 55 grains of N201 @ 2609 fps. That’s 4000 ft-lbs from H414 and 4080 ft-lbs from N201. That caught my attention back in 1988, but the fact that no American rifles were chambered for that cartridge, and that Speer used reformed .30-06 brass and made the only 9.3 bullet in the USA — and that being a semi-spitzer… I lost interest and went with my first .338 Win Mag.

Nonetheless, while the market was becoming over-crowded with “new and wonderful” cartridges, many of which were repetitive of those gone before or merely competing with other manufacturers “creations”, there was a growing interest in the foreign market for something nostalgic and different, yet powerful enough for most North American hunting, if not under all conditions, that wouldn’t bruise your shoulder or ego when fired! Somehow this “growing interest” reached the ears of the management of the CZ factory in the Czech Republic. With the right contacts in North America, soon shipments of the CZ 550 was made, chambered in the famed 9.3 x 62. They were snatched up immediately! Word quickly spread. Soon Ruger was offering them, along with Sako and Sauer that were also shipping their products to North America, as was Zastava. The word was spreading quickly!

<My TIKKA T3 Lite has a 22.44″ barrel that is a SAKO match grade. Tikka is a product of Sako.

In the midst of that, I was looking for another 35 Whelen, which were nearly impossible to locate in any of the shops I dealt with, and that was several. But I noticed a couple of TIKA T3 Lites on sale at a large dealership I frequently visited. They were chambered in 9.3 x 62. I’d had a growing interest in that cartridge and through research I recognised it was similar to the 35 Whelen and 350 Rem Mag, both of which I’d had considerable experience with. So I went shopping at that gun emporium and came home with a Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62. That was in May, 2011.

How good is it? A 35 Whelen plus! A Brown Whelen? Plus! A .338 Win Mag? Plus! A .375 H&H? About the same depending on how each is handloaded, barrel length and PSI.

“Depending on how each is handloaded”. Definitely! Neither will give their utmost from factory products considering the age of each: 1905 for the 9.3 x 62 and 1912 for the .375 H&H. But in newly manufactured rifles, at modern PSI for magnums, they both profit and shine! What the .375 H&H will do with a 300gr, the 9.3 x 62 will do from a 286gr, and both have the same SD. But the heavier you go the closer they get! A 300gr from the 9.3 x 62 in a 22.5″ modern rifle will do 2550 fps/ 4331 ft-lbs at 64,000 PSI. From a 320gr it will make 2460 fps/ 4300 ft-lbs at the muzzle. A 286gr NP from mine (22.4″ barrel) makes 2630 fps/4392 ft-lbs quite easily. RL-17 is used in all those loads.

Many experienced PH’s and hunters of each have testified that they have discerned no difference in their effect on mega fauna.

< That’s 7.7 lbs with 4 cartridges and scope.

But the beauty of the 9.3 x 62 is the smaller and lighter/ handier package! Plus, on average they are cheaper than a typical .375 H&H. The main lack is a common, made in the USA, good quality lighter bullet as is typically found in .338 caliber. Such would be ideal for lighter game such as pronghorn, wolf and smaller whitetails in particular parts of North America. However, I load the 250gr Nosler AccuBond at variable speeds depending on location and game. Just now, my load for local whitetails, coyote and wolf is that bullet at 2600 fps (It can easily make over 2700 fps). That’s relatively flat shooting and potent enough for even big game to +400 yards. And in my T3 Lite it’s relatively “light” in recoil.

Bullets are available from Hornady (Plus, they market cases in 9.3 x 62 which I use), Nosler, and Barnes, as well as the 270gr from Speer (For some inexplicable reason that 270gr has never been accurate from my rifle. The others are typically sub-MOA.). As well, some foreign bullets are available at some locations: Norma and Woodleigh in particular, but they are expensive. I’ve not yet tried any of the TSX’s, but favor the two Noslers: the 286gr Partition and 250gr AccuBond. The 286gr Hornady has proven itself on one bear, and I’ve sixteen left of the 320gr Woodleighs out of a box of 50. As well quite a few 232gr Oryx’s (non-bonded) remain of a box of 100, and still a few of the 270gr Speers. The 232gr Oryx’s have a poor BC and are not bonded, though very accurate. I’ve a good load at about 2450 fps that I intended for wolf or coyote, but I hate to keep changing scope settings! I like one load for that rifle for everything I hunt! That would currently be the 250gr – that will be 2600 fps — and I already have tried that load with success using RL-17.

Bullet: 250 Accubond

SD = .267

BC = .493

MV = 2600 fps/ 3752 ft-lbs

50 = 2515 fps/ 3510 ft-lbs/ +0.86″

100=2431 fps/ 3281 ft-lbs/ +2.08″

150= 2349 fps/ 3063 ft-lbs/ +1.83″

200=2269 fps/ 2857 ft-lbs/ 0.0″

250=2190 fps/ 2662 ft-lbs/ -3.51″

300=2113 fps/ 2478 ft-lbs/ -8.84″

350=2037 fps/ 2303 ft-lbs/ -16.1″

400=1963 fps/ 2139 ft-lbs/ -25.5″

Personally, I like to use a rifle more than once! One good all-around rifle has more value to me than multiple rifles that rarely get used. That’s, as I said, personal, and from experience in owning several that basically did the same things. I’m not passing judgement on others who are collectors or own several of the same class or classes. But I like getting the most out of one rifle that’s possible at both ends of the velocity/accuracy spectrum. And I have two BG rifles, that are hugely different, but with those same goals. The other, of course, is the big-bore Ruger #1 in .458 Win Mag that is more challenging in regard to its full potential due to its bore size and the classes and number of projectiles available.

In recently reading a thread on 24hour campfire, the OP praised the .257 Roberts. In responses there were well over 200! And almost none were negative! But other cartridges that are similar in ballistics were also praised by the respondents, such as the .243 Winchester, .260 Rem, 6.5 x 55 Swede, .25-06 and even the 7-08 Rem. But the one most mentioned in addition to the Roberts was… could you imagine? Of course, the 6.5 Creedmoor!!! And in the process of applauding these carts, multiple pics of pronghorn were shown as proof of their excellence! And several of mule deer.

Now, all that’s well and good, but the last time I saw a live pronghorn or mule deer was NEVER! In fact, I’ve never laid eyes even on a dead one – in person! So what reason would I have for owning a sub-standard cartridge for 350 – 400 lb Northern whitetails that bound through timber like it was straw? At 30 mph?

I’m sure you get my drift…

< If you want to go fancy… and expensive!

From my perspective, from where I hunt and what I hunt, there’s little better than a Medium Bore, and nothing better than a Big Bore – in particular, a modern .45-70 or .458 Winchester Magnum.

As previously mentioned, if I wanted to go smaller and lighter it would very likely be in 7-08 Remington. It’s as good as its parent, the .308 Winchester or .270 Winchester, and better than the 6.5 Creedmoor in 162gr and 175gr. projectiles.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL