Science and Handloading. . .

How many handloaders are there in North America? I have no exact idea but I could possibly make a guess based on the populations of the USA and Canada: The United States (without checking) has around 325 – 335 million. Canada 41 million.

The latest American stats are 25.87 million reported hunting activities. That includes children as young as 6 and bow hunters who may or may not be involved in handloading firearms. But 25.87 million represents 7.8% of the total population of ~330 million. If 10% of the hunting population were handloaders, then about 2.6 million would be handloaders, or 1 in 127 persons.

According to the latest stats for CANADA, 1.2 million Canadians identify as hunters, or about 3% of the total population. Generally, Canadian youth don’t commence hunting with firearms until about age 12 under supervision. But if we use the 10% number for a guess at how many practice handloading then we have approximately 120,000 handloaders. 120,000 represents 1.45% of the Canadian population, which is 1 in 342 persons. So the American rate of persons who handload compared to Canada’s rate is 2.69 times greater. Not only does the population factor of 10 to 1 give great advantages in marketing handloading components, but also 2.69x the Canadian rate of actually using handloads, grants innumerable advantages that Canadian shooters and handloaders could only dream about.

Nonetheless, Canadians do profit greatly from the American experience and marketing of handloading components, since it would be about nil here without it! Thank you America!

While 1 handloader out of about 342 Canadians is not exactly a geopolitical concern that keeps our government leaders awake at night, it’s further interesting to note that the only store in our town that would order some handloading components closed its doors about 10 yrs ago. But Canadian Tire began to sell rifles and shotguns again along with ammo and hunting paraphernalia like rifle scopes, hunting boots and clothes -but no handloading components. Also, one of Toronto’s large outdoor stores stopped selling “reloading” components about 7 – 8 yrs ago. Yet, we still have several in Southern and Central Ontario that are specialists in that enterprise.

Whatever the number of North American handloaders might be in reality, a still smaller group doesn’t go very deep into the science of handloads. They prefer to stick with what manuals have come up with, assuming that to be the best and safest approach. On the other hand, there are a sustantial number who do a lot more shooting than others. So handloading isn’t a question of equality in knowledge and/or experience and dedication. Some are shooting thousands of handloads (“reloads”?) from a variety of rifle cartridges annually, while others are shooting less than 100 on an annual basis. (A side note: If all components are new – including the brass cases – how could those be “reloads”? Something else while I’m at it: Some english professors insist it’s “hand loaders” as “handloader” isn’t in dictionaries. Well, then, put it there! Americans invent new language every other week!)

Twenty-five to thirty years ago, when I was into handloading several different rifles – both adding and subtracting – I was shooting thousands of rounds annually, but today I don’t need, or even want, to do that because of having fewer rifles that I’ve already developed good hunting loads for. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to try different loads for “science sake”, but I don’t need to. I already have too many good to excellent hunting loads for my remaining big game rifles. And I’ll shoot them at the range for practice and comparison’s sake due to a strong interest and investment in both time and finances in the science of rifle ballistics. (“Science” – scientia: to know, to discern, to distinguish, to study, etc.)

<Testing handloads in my former CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum in 2008: For the sake of scientia.

I started handloading in a bolt-action surplus military .30-06 in 1980, then added a single-shot H&H in .22 Hornet about a year later. About the same time I traded the cast-off military .30-06 for a Win 70 in .30-06. In those early days I wisely went with two manuals, not just a single one: a Lyman and a SPEER. Then a move from Toronto to Halifax on the east coast took place where the .30-06 was used in deer hunting. That was followed by a 7 Rem Mag and a .300 Win before returning to Ontario. As briefly explained in my latest blog, others followed over time. A .338 Win and a Marlin .45-70, etc., till today where all of it has been pruned to 3 big game rifles that have tasted various handloads and been toted into the hunting areas I’ve amply described over several years.

Having been a pastor of several churches in some of Canada’s largest cities from Halifax on the east coast to Toronto, Ontario, I’ve neither had much free time or finances, or personal property, to fully experience what many hunters have been able to do. Nonetheless, I have had ample experiences in handloading, shooting and hunting to satisfy both my technical and adventurous spirit. I too have been privileged to live most of my hunting years within an hour’s drive of prime hunting areas – at times less than 1/2 hour .

My current Crown Land area was “discovered” in the fall of 1981, and was hunted for deer for the following two seasons where I learned what was private and where the Crown Land borders were. Then we went to Halifax for nearly 4 years and hunted for two seasons on private land prior to returning to Ontario. Then we were much closer to The Haliburton Highlands (Crown Land) than when we lived in Toronto. That was 38 years ago this November, and I’ve mostly, but not exclusively, hunted those Highlands since. For moose I’ve gone to the “Far North” of Ontario, and bait- hunting bear took us onto private property, closer to home, for six seasons. For the past 3 years, including 2025, I’ve returned to the Haliburton Highlands – a familiar area.

The point of all that is to say that handloads have been adapted to the areas I’ve hunted, as well as choice of rifles for the game. As pointed out multiple times, there’s little chance in that area for any so-called “long-range” shooting of big game, especially bears over bait or “chance bears”. The longest bear-bait setup was a favorite for many years at “100 yards” near the bottom of a ridge. It is dense forest with a huge bog just back of a thin tree line. That bog stretches for 3 klms (2 miles) and terminates at a relatively small lake – Bark Lake – that is fed by several streams. This is ideal country for multiple species of wildlife, including big game like moose, deer, bear, wolf, etc, plus small game.

< This was my original bear-bait location in Haliburton Highlands, and continued as such for over a dozen years. You can detect the bog mentioned through the thin treeline, that stretches left for 400 yards, and right until it terminates at Bark Lake.

<In more recent times I was spring scouting that area with my 9.3 x 62. The bog was out front of me and Bark Lake to the right.

I used to walk the trails of Haliburton Highlands with a loaded rifle. That is until the ATVs and snow machines took over the trails and became official for those machines. The result has been in driving game away from trails, back further into dense bush where if you want to shoot something, you have to go in and find it! In the case of bears, baits are used to draw them out. So hunting is adapted to physical conditions at relatively close quarters – hence larger bores that shoot heavier bullets to anchor game on the spot:

< These 400gr Colorado Custom (Barnes Original) .458-caliber were chosen for this year’s fall bear hunt in my Ruger No.1H in .458 Win. They leave the muzzle at 2235 fps avg and have 0.049″ thick copper jackets.

As explained below, several critical health issues involving my wife in particular, and myself to a lesser degree, have interfered with that plan.

This is one of 2 boxes for .458 Win Mag handloads. The loads for this fall’s bear hunt are in the upper-right corner – 6 RN Colorado Customs. The other 2 tight in the corner are 400gr Hawk FN, several of which have served to develop the CC loads since their available number was limited. Above, in the plastic container with FEDERAL Premium on it are still 6 remaining of their 20 factory 400gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claws (TBBC), that I’d originally hoped to use on bear. That plan was changed to use those 10 handloaded 300gr TSX’s, thinking them more suitable at 2750 fps than the TBBCs at 2250 fps, questioning their ability to expand on maybe a smallish to medium bear. As it turned out, I knew that the only bear in attendance at my bait setup was the dominant one that might exceed 400 lbs, which indeed did happen last year (Oct, 2024). And it was even larger than expected at 500 lbs plus. So for this current season I decided on another 400gr at about the same MV as those 400gr TBBCs. Not that I hoped for that same dominant bear to return so I could shoot it, but just because I wanted to “bloody” my .458! Anything in that .458 box would have worked, but these Colorados had a special meaning for me (You’ll have to go back for a month or two to read that story.).

The great advantage of handloads is the ability to adapt terminal ballistics to conditions. One thing you don’t want in that area is game running off for even 50 – 60 yds (or more) after the shot! Depending on some variable situations, even 20 yds might cause real grief for recovery.

On one particular deer hunt in that area, a big buck was being chased by dogs (I never use them), it went over a sheer cliff into a thick ravine and out the other side, up over a vertical wall of rock leaving the dogs behind on the far side in its escape. What if that buck had been wounded by the hunters and fallen into that rocky ravine and couldn’t escape? The dogs couldn’t go down there nor the hunters! Yes, they could finish it off but couldn’t retrieve it! I’d hunted that area for several seasons and didn’t know that cragy ravine was there because the bush was so thick. But I stood on it’s edge moments after the buck came up out of there. Yet that buck knew exactly where it was going to escape the dogs (NOT hounds!). That country is full of surprises, including several sheer cliffs. . . . one in particular I remember quite well. In following deer tracks I stumbled upon it: A sheer vertical wall of granite straight down for 20 feet or more, with heavy pieces of granite scattered at the bottom. I pondered, and wondered what was the geological history of that spot that deer were obviously calling home. It was not visible from 10 yds away from which I’d just come! But from below (yes, I managed to take another way to get down there) it looked like a powerful earthquake had taken place, perhaps centuries or millennia before.

So where we hunt, and what, determines our choice of rifles. Generally, I must say that such experiences have reshaped my thinking (scientia). A quick handling, powerful rifle was the most apparent solution for game that could appear from nowhere in 2 seconds and disappear just as quickly! And this is not referencing big bucks in particular, but game that could hurt you in a moment and then disappear. . . or deposit you at the bottom of a cliff! Think a rutting or surprised big 300 lb buck couldn’t or wouldn’t do that? Think again. . . . . .

< My Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT was short and handy at 8.25 lbs ready to hunt and only 40″ in length. It’s power was equal to a Lott with an equal length barrel shooting factory loaded 500s. And that was only 50 yards or so from my favorite bear-bait location!

Noisy hunters in groups of 2 or 4 will not surprise big game, but. . . . what about you, solo and quiet? Do dominant bucks ever defend their territory, or challenge intruders? Think again. . . . especially if they’re surprised in their bedroom! Adrenalin-charged bucks are like adrenalin-charged anything – human or beast! Bull moose will attack transport trucks and even trains! Just ask the folk of Newfoundland!

I’ve handloaded 51 rifles that contained twenty-three chamberings from the small .22 Hornet to the mighty .458 Winchester Magnum.

Today, I handload for 3 big game rifles: a .35 Whelen, a .375 H&H and my favorite, a Ruger No.1H in .458 Winchester Magnum.

I’ve developed a few handloads in each for both hunting and technical purposes, as mentioned at the outset. In the .35 Whelen I’ve developed three hunting loads: 225gr Accubond at 2840 fps, a 300gr Barnes Original at 2350 fps, and a 250gr Nosler Partition at 2700 fps. For those who don’t know the rifle, it’s a Traditions Outfitter G3 single-shot with too many features to go into here. It weighs 8.25 lbs ready with a 3 – 9 x 40 Vortex scope, one in the chamber an 3 in a stock cartridge holder. It’s been to my bear-bait site many times. It’s my lightest rifle that develops ~31 ft-lbs recoil with the muzzle brake. It’s my “walk-about” rifle being relatively light and short at 39 inches OL.

The .375 H&H is a Zastava M70 with a Mauser ’98 action that allows full-length COL of 3.6″. While I’ve shot several handloads, two have been chosen for hunting: the 250gr TTSX at 2850 fps and the 300gr Sierra BT at 2674 fps using StaBALL 6.5. It hits hard on both ends. That was last year’s rifle for my fall bear hunt when that big bear finally showed up. The scope is a BURRIS full field 11, 3 – 9 x 40, and was on him at 3x from about 35 yds to 20 yds when I turned and walked away. I didn’t want or need a “trophy”, and had only asked to “see him”, not to shoot him. I was alone and knew he was dominant for two years, but ready to shoot a ~150 lb black bear should one appear; I could deal with that alone, not a 500+ pounder! The load was that 300gr Sierra.

The .458 Win in my Ruger No.1H was ready for this year, but health matters for both my wife and self have not cooperated! She has been struggling for some time with a bad knee, and more recently with an infected foot. So a lot of time for care at home, doctor’s appointments, etc., involving a lot of extra driving on my part. Then, I was feeling on top of the world when sciatica hit me hard when I got up one morning. It’s much better right now, but about the same time I came down with the flu! (And my arthritis began to complain more than usual. . . .)

So, all-in-all, it’s not been a great bear hunt, but I have managed to check and replenish baits about every 5 days. And it was hit every time though I couldn’t stay away from my wife for long periods. So I’ve brought the tote for bear baiting home, until, maybe next spring (2026!). But my first responsibility is the care of my dear wife of 68 years!

< My last pic of the area before bringing the tote home a week ago. However, in retrieving the cover of the tote laying flat on the ground beyond and left of the tote, I noticed bear bite marks that were not previously there. At home I examined them more carefully and took a couple of pics: They were from a young bear. And previously, in resetting the bait in Sept-Oct (2025), the lid was still attached (snaps on) while it was completely empty with the log off and poles pulled out of the end holes, and the tote itself moved some distance from its original location. All matters added up to a young bear’s work – exactly what I was hoping for.

< The young bear attempted to remove the snapped-on lid by biting it. That’s not the bite of a mature bear but a juvenile. There’s only a 2.5″ gap between bottom and top teeth which are the three punctures below the two above in the pic. Also, new punctures in the bottom of the tote made by the same bear. Those were not made by the dominant 500+ lb bear of the last 2 years. So, just perhaps that young bruin may be around in May, 2026 – about the right size for my intentions!

Moose hunters moved in last Sunday, and then deer hunters in a week from now. Already someone has set up their blind nearby.

As for myself, I’m still fit and able to do another bear hunt ( a 100 to 150 lb bear) on my own, but a lot depends on my wife, Adrienne’s, overall physical status as well as my own. Next May (2026) she’ll be only 4 months from age 90. God has been very faithful and kind to both of us.

Till the next. . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

RIFE Recoil Effect

Note: that’s “effect” not “affect”. The first is a nown and the second a transitive verb. One is a result, the other a cause.

Effect – “anything brought about by a cause”.

So this discussion is about the effect (result) of recoil on the shooter, which of necessity involves a cause.

< That was my .340 Wby Mag. My son, Phil, and I were a long way from home on a moose hunt – I was in my sixties. The load was a 250gr Partition at 3000 fps = 54 ft-lbs of free recoil.- more than twice that of a .30-06.

In my last essay, I was dealing with Terminal Ballistics from 4 classes of rifles: .30-30; 6.5 Creedmoor; .30-06 and .375 H&H, and promised to discuss the issue of recoil this time around, using those four classes as examples.

As previously told, the .30-30 has been historically useful from small to large game depending on a number of factors, but best for medium game at modest ranges. On the other end of that spectrum is the .375 H&H that may be used as a popular example of a rifle for large and dangerous game. While each of those two has certainly been useful on other classes of game than their normal usage, they excel in particular niches.

The .30-30 in a Win 94 with a 20″ barrel will shoot a handloaded170gr at ~2100 fps = about 11 ft-lbs of recoil (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The 6.5 Creedmoor in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 22 – 24″ barrel, shooting a 142gr at 2750 fps = about 17 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The .30-06 in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 22″ barrel, shooting a 210gr at 2650 fps = ~ 25 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The .375 H&H in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 24″ barrel, shooting a 300gr at 2650 fps = ~46 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

We’re not going down “rabbit holes” here, but they are representative of average conditions, not specific in each and every situation. Nonetheless, they reveal in a general sense the disparity between those four categories of rifles when handloaded for hunting purposes.

But what do those numbers feel like in the real world vs the theoretical one? While the physics is real, “felt recoil” may be somewhat different. How is that possible, we might legitimately ask.

Over about 70 years of hunting activity, I started with a BB gun, then a single-shot 22 LR. Though I actually deer hunted with some borrowed centerfire rifles (a British .303 and a .30-30), my first owned firearm for big game was a bolt-action 12ga shotgun with a clip magazine that held two, plus another in the chamber. It turned out to be a great grouse gun but a poor deer firearm because of a built-in tight, non-adjustable choke which I didn’t know about in those days in using Foster-type slugs for deer. At the time and place, buckshot was illegal – and please don’t ask me why because I haven’t a clue!

As far as recoil was concerned, I never feared any of it from the .303 Brit or 12ga in particular. The .303 was a Jungle Carbine in pristine condition with the flash hider cut off. Not yet being a handloader, everything was factory. But I could only afford either the .303 or the 12ga. I chose the latter because I was seeing a lot more birds than deer, and figured I could use the slugs for deer until my first big game rifle.

A plump doe went down faster than I could blink. . . . and just as fast she “arose from the dead” and beat a hasty retreat into thick brush. 20 yds separated us when I fired point blank into her broadside stance just after the sun had disappeared behind trees. In 15 minutes it was total darkness! No blood! No fur! No nothing! I’d missed a big game animal at point-blank range! Unbelievable! Later, I took the shotgun to a gravel pit, set up a cardboard target at 25 yds and still couldn’t hit it from 4 slugs that were being flung hither and yon after being squished by that full choke!

Oh well. . . I’d have to wait until I could afford a rifle. In the meanwhile my wife loved the tender, succulent birds’ breasts from grouse taken in the hardwoods!

But what about the 12ga’s recoil? Never noticed it! Nor that of the .303 British Carbine. The 12ga about 20 ft-lbs, and the .303 about 18 ft-lbs. Both in the neighborhood of a .308 Winchester.

From there I upped matters to a handloaded .30-06 – about the same as a 7 lb 12ga firing birdshot. From there to a 7 Rem Mag semi-auto BAR – 150s at 2950 fps from handloads = 23 ft-lbs less the auto system. Actually quite comfortable though too heavy.

Then my first .300 Win Mag bolt-action repeater: 180gr at 3050 fps = 32 ft-lbs from a 9 lb rifle.

Followed by my first .338 Win Mag – a SAKO carbine FS/20″ barrel: 200s, 225s, 250s and 270s = avg 37 ft-lbs

Then my .375 H&Hs and .458 Win Mags = 45 to 65 ft-lbs!

But, the recoil KING was my Ruger No.1 LT in .45-70 (long throat) at up to 76 ft-lbs from a 500gr at 2212 fps/5432 ft-lbs. Actually, those 500gr Hornady’s on average were 503 grains. . . So, that’s 5464 ft-lbs – to be more precise. That’s the number I usually give for recoil from that load of 75 grains of H335 at 3.19 COL.

< Add 14 fps for correction to the muzzle at 5 yds from the Chrony.

I gave that rehearsal to firstly show the progression over a period of ~66 years! Secondly, I did mature in the handling of recoil but have also gotten much older which puts me today well beyond my prime, so I’ve significantly cut back the effects of recoil in several ways.

That’s the point of this disclosure.

When I traded my Ruger No.1 LT (45-70) in 2018 for the Ruger No.1H in .458 it was to reduce “felt recoil” while still maintaining ballistics similar to the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 with its long throat – that enabled bullets to be seated significantly less deeply into the .45-70 cases – allowing more of the best powders to be used without increased psi. That worked wonderfully. But that rifle at 8.25 lbs ready to hunt became too light for me as I approached 80 yrs. The Ruger No1H in .458 was 2 lbs heavier and had the Mag-Na-Ports. So those two factors allowed me to still use the ballistics I was used to from the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. But I was also losing weight rather quickly from the right places. Today, for instance, out of the shower I weigh what I did at age 17, and what I did when married at age 21.

Having lost 45 lbs over the past decade in exchange for a rifle that’s 2 lbs heavier? I’ll take that any day in rough country without sidewalks! Of course, that assumes I’m acting responsibly in the maintenance of muscle strength!

So, the NO 1 way of reducing felt-recoil from any particular load of any rifle is:

CONTRARY TO CURRENT PRACTICE: Use a heavier rifle for the same ballistics! Depending on the cartridge and load, that may be 40 ft-lbs from a .338 Win Mag (for example) that only weighs 8 lbs ready to roll. Rather, choose one (or exchange for one) that weighs 9 lbs ready with the same pet load. Of course, there are other ways to add or reduce weight that affects felt recoil.

NO 2: Change scopes. Depending on what we’re hunting, and where, a different rifle scope can alter oveall weight by several ounces. Same with a sling or even the stock itself. In these cases we want to add weight, not reduce it – but the goal is to reduce felt recoil while maintaining the same or similar ballistics. Adding weight plus slightly reducing the velocity can make a significant distinction in comfort level. The loss of 50 fps will only affect downrange results to a minimal degree. That may simply mean reducing the load by 1 or 1.5 grains of the same powder, or switching to a different powder that’s slightly faster and using less of it than in the slower propellant. Of course, psi will be a bit higher to maintain the same MV.

NO 3: Use a different stock. If walnut, try a synthetic, or vise versa. Or even a stock with different ergonomics.

NO 4: Lots of heavy-hitting rifles are now ported, or have brakes, including both factory and custom. Of my three, 2 have brakes: The Traditions G3 single-shot has ports that surround the end of the barrel for 1.5 inches near the muzzle. It’s chambered in .35 Whelen. I’d say it works well enough in reducing felt recoil by up to 20%, depending on the actual load. Instead of 38 ft-lbs for the 225 AB at 2840 fps, I’m getting around 30 -31 ft-lbs. And that’s significant! In the .458 I calculate about 10% reduction from the Mag-na-Porting.

NO 5: Use a lighter bullet and/or a more efficient one. I’ve gone to a 300gr Sierra BT in my .375 H&H. It is more than adequate for my purposes. I’ll not be chasing Cape Buffalo any time soon. Its construction and high BC makes it very efficent at long range as well as at close encounters. It’s ballistic coefficient (BC) at impact velocities between 2500 fps and 1600 is .480, otherwise about .470. The only other .375-cal 300gr with a slightly higher BC is the Nosler AB at .485. But tests have shown the Sierra to be a tougher bullet and less expensive. No doubt, at close ranges the Hornady 300gr DGX or Barnes 300gr TSX would be better choices for Cape Buffalo, but RinB (his handle) on http://www.24hourcampfire.com has said that the 250gr TTSX was as good as the 270gr LRX in killing Cape buff and better than either the 300 TSX or 300gr A-Frame, both of which he’s also used in killing a couple of the 19 Cape buffalo he has terminated. The last five were all killed with the 250 TTSX at about 2850 fps, three of which only needed a single shot, and they all made exit in penetration. As to the 300gr A-Frame, he had to use three and none made complete penetration. Due to those facts, I bought a couple of boxes of the 250gr TTSX for a bear hunt in early 2024. Later that year I was able to get the 300gr SBT and loaded those for the fall bear hunt. But I fully expect the 250gr TTSX would out-penetrate the 300gr Sierra in tough media and likely hold onto a higher % of retained weight. But on live game this side of the water, I’d fully expect the 300gr Sierra to perform as needed. It has proven itself on large N.A. game despite several critics’ view of non-bonded BT bullets. It has a thick 0.050″ copper-alloy jacket and a tough lead-alloy core.

< The 300gr Sierra BT on the right and the 300gr TSX on the left. At the same COL we can see how the Sierra could accomodate more powder without compression in addition to a much higher BC of .480 vs only .357 for the 300gr TSX.

But that 300gr SBT at 2674 fps is delivered by either 77 grs of RL-17 or 81.5 grs of StaBALL 6.5 = ~46 ft-lbs of recoil sans brake. Rl-17 is slightly faster with less powder than StaBALL 6.5, so recoil is similar from each load. Because of the current absence of Rl-17 in the market, I’ve switched to StaBALL 6.5.

On the other hand, the 250gr TTSX at 2850 fps over 77 grs of CFE-223 = 38 ft-lbs of recoil. I’ve no doubts at this stage of matters, that it will do equally well for my purposes. There is one exception, being that the 250 TTSX isn’t as consistently accurate as the 300 SBT. Hopefully, more tests at longer range will prove that to be incorrect.

<The 250gr Barnes TTSX crimped into the top cannelure for max COL.

Whatever the case, it’s true that recoil can be reduced by choosing another bullet that holds it downrange velocity more efficiently and/or a lighter bullet with higher MV with less recoil.

Here are the data points of that suggestion as illustrated above in the 2 bear loads from my .375 H&H with its 22″ barrel:

The 300gr SBT @ 2674 fps: zero at 250 yds and temp at 65*F/40*C/ Elevation = 1200 ft. RH = 58%

The 250gr TTSX @ 2850 fps: zero, temp/ elevation and RH the same.

300gr Sierra BT at MV = 2674 fps avg./4762 ft-lbs; Recoil = 46 ft-lbs

at 300 yds = 2172 fps/3141 ft-lbs/ -4.39″

at 450 yds = 1942 fps/2513 ft-lbs/ – 29.13″

0000000000000000000000000000000000

The 250gr TTSX at MV = 2850 fps avg./4508 ft-lbs; Recoil = 38 ft-lbs

at 300 yds = 2264 fps/2844 ft-lbs/ -3.93″

at 450 yds = 1999 fps/2218 ft-lbs/ -26.5″

Thus, all told there are multiple ways and means of lessening the effect of recoil from any rifle, but especially the powerful mid-bores and Big Bores.

To reiterate; plus additional commentary that I’ve previously presented in other blogs:

1. Increase the total weight of the rifle package ready to hunt.

2. Choose a heavier scope.

3. Change the stock to one that’s more ergonomically suitable.

4. Get acquainted with the rifles ballistics well before using it on game. That means shooting it alot in developing loads and in practice, including field practice where possible. About 150 to 200 rounds is a practical goal.

5. Use good posture at the bench. Don’t slouch or use “bench style”! Sit up straight and hold onto the rifle with both hands, pulling it tight to the shoulder!

6. If a handloader – and who can learn the rifles varied capabilities without handloads? – develop a variety for distinct purposes.

7. Familiarize yourself with its operation until it becomes an extension of mind and body.

8. Use reduced loads for the heaviest bullets and/or employ lighter premium bullets with high BCs that will retain most of their original weight after impact. They will equal or surpass heavier lead-core bullets in penetration.

9. Have a muzzle brake installed if the rifle didn’t include one from the manufacturer. I finally had one installed on my Tika T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62. It was eating the scopes mounted.

Just some practical ways that I’ve employed (as well as other shooters/hunters) over the years for managing any “hard-kicking” rifles!

10. And one last thing that is the KEY to all this: ATTITUDE! If you’re not determined to MANAGE it, IT will manage you! That is, like so many others, excuses will be made to justify a negative attitude like “A .300 Win Mag isn’t needed.” Period. Maybe, maybe not! But is that the real point, or situation? If somebody is only hunting bambi, then I might agree. But there’s a lot more to hunt than deer that may go less than 250 lbs at whatever range. And someone with that attitude is unnecessarily limiting themselves, if they only understood that fact!

Somebody “in the know” has put it this way (not necessarily a perfect quote, but close enough): “Unless someone is willing to learn to shoot a .375 H&H, they are limiting themselves of a lot of big game hunting because the .375 H&H is the least powerful rifle fully capable of cleanly taking any game on this planet, dangerous or not.”

Not an exact quote, but close enough in intention. Though many will want to debate or deny that, I fully support it’s intention. The motive is that sanity demands fully capable terminal ballistics under all conditions – not only ideal ones! In general, that’s been the motivation over the many years and conditions of my hunts.

With that attitude and motive, climbing the recoil mountain started at the foothills, but didn’t terminated there, anymore than a true mountain climber stops at the foothills. As stated, it has been a progression that has taken me to the pinnacal of Mount .458 Win, and there I’ve rested because the scenery beyond that is downhill and then flatland.

I’ve stated numerous times, with the strongest possible belief, that the main effect of recoil is mental and emotional. It’s what we think about it rather than what it physically feels like . Thus the expression: “felt recoil” – meaning the physics in numerical format in comparison with “normal recoil” from “standard rifle ballistics” for North American medium game like white-tailed deer – about 10 to 20 ft-lbs. And even then there are those who vociferlously complain over the recoil of a .30-06 Springfield! And especially is that true in today’s sporting world of light rifles with faster and lighter bullets!

If there was genuine concern over the kick of “standard ballistics” from traditional rifles, then why all the hoopla over rifles for “deer hunting” that weigh less than 5 pounds? Gimme a break from all this hypocrisy. . . . Please! In truth it’s the latest gimmic to foist new rifle sales!

You may scoff at my choices for bears, especially the black-coloured ones! But recently in Alaska two men, one in his sixties and another at 70 years, in distinct locations and under varied conditions, were both attacked and killed by juvenile year-old black bears! One bear weighed 70 lbs! And one of those men was attacked and killed just outside his house! And that’s not hearsay or rumors, I read it recently in a couple of online news services from Alaska with official reporting by police and other authorities. Ergo: a 350 lb black bear in my neighbourhood is nothing for me to take lightly! The pain he/she could inflict would make 45 ft-lbs of protection seem like a blessing from heaven if and when needed! Right? Yea and Amen!

You see what happens in Alaska is that too many bears seems “normal” to the point of NOT taking them seriously! “They don’t bother us, so why bother them?” Till someone gets injured or killed by a yearling? “But they’re so cute and cuddly. . . .”

A number of years ago – like about 15 of so – I was installing a new blind over newly installed kitchen cabinets at the kitchen window. My wife went shopping so I decided to put them in place. They were made in China with heavy-type Venetian slats and Chinese screws to hold everything together and in place. I got on the counter top by step ladder, and couldn’t stand straight-up with my head against the ceiling. In wrestling with screws that didn’t fit tightly into a normal power screw driver, I was imbalanced and grabbed hold of the new fancy crown on top of the upper cabinets for support. The problem was – and I was totally oblivious of that fact – that the crown was not yet fastened to the upper cabinets, and it let go of the cabinet and me with it. I landed on the kitchen floor with first my left hand and wrist taking the initial blow, followed next by my left forearm and elbow, and finally by my left shoulder – all within a second or less! At the time I weighed about 185 lbs, and the fall taken for arm and wrist was about 6 feet. How fast? 6 ft per 1/2 second = 12 fps x 12 fps/450400 = 0. 0003197 x (185 lbs x 7000 = 1295000 grains) = 414 ft-lbs! My shoulder and arm absorbed 414 ft-lbs of recoil! I got off the floor, mad as a hornet and climbed back onto the counter top and finished the job of hanging the blind to spite the Chinese! When my wife arrived home and noticed a bulge on my left elbow the size of an egg she wanted to know what happened! I brushed it off by bashing the Chinese!

And there’s the infamous blind still in place after fifteen years!

So don’t complain within my hearing about how awful the recoil of your rifle is! (Just blame the Chinese if you run out of other excuses!)

Till the next . . . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Terminal Ballistics of Firearms

This is a topic that historically has been and will be judged by both physics and/or results.

In the not-too-distant-past, the science of physics was appealed to, and with some persons – both “scientists” and “doers”- it still has merit in today’s hunting experience.

< This is physics. I wouldn’t have known with any cerainty what the 405gr Remington was doing from the muzzle of my 1895 Marlin in .45-70 without the chronograph. Then other calculations were made based on the claimed BC of the bullet: Its trajectory and energy at various ranges. The distance between the Chrony and the muzzle of the rifle was 15′, so based on Remington’s claimeded BC of .281 (based on their factory load for the 405gr, its trajectory and energy at various ranges), I added 14 fps correction to 2101 = 2115 fps/4022 ft-lbs. I shot a nice bear with that handload at 97 yds downhill from blind to bait barrel. It was a going-away shot into left flank that made exit just behind the right shoulder. Impact velocity was 1835 fps/3028 ft-lbs. That was the physics. A bang-flop was the result.

<This was the bait-barrel at 97 yds. The bear was leaving to the left.

BUT! In today’s media and by very “vocal doers”, arguments presented are very much dependent on empircal results alone. The claim is made that the latest cartridges/rifles – with higher spin rates, to stabilize those new long and slim bullets, with very high ballistic coefficients – have changed the game. And they present numbers to prove it. Numbers and results, however they may be interpreted, must have a testable benchmark for proper evaluation, as in the results from my bear load above. For example: When some Internet “cowboy” claims to have killed dozens of elk with his 6.5 Creedmoor and therefore nothing more is needed, we should ask these questions of self and/or the claimant: What were the specific ranges, weights and sex. There are elk bulls that could weigh 800 lbs and other young bulls that might only weigh 1/2 of that or less still. Then ranges could vary from, say 50 yds to 500! Also the physical conditions. Then, how many were shot from pre-arranged steady rests and how many from offhand under difficult physical conditions such as in mountain hunting? And so on. . . . . . .

I recall a benchmark being given for the clean kill of a brown bear many years ago as 3900 ft-lbs at the muzzle of a rifle. Of course, brown bears are not usually shot at the muzzle – hopefully! – but usually at a minimum of 25 yds to a maximum of around 200 yds. Therefore, that benchmark was likely intended as a generalization of how far from the shooter the average brown bear is shot and, therefore, 3900 ft-lbs seemed adequate within those parameters. And likely that was in consideration of a “suitable load” from a .338 Win Mag. And, of course, much was taken for granted outside that 3900 number, such as the actual bullet weight, construction, caliber and placement. Then there is the question of the bear’s maturity: Grizzlies can go to 1000 lbs but most that are harvested are much less than that. A realistic average might be 400 to 600 lbs. In the case of a brown bear, the actual majority taken likely will be less than 1000 lbs. Nonetheless, one should go prepared for a real monster of 1200 to 1400 lbs!

To say that I’m less than impressed with the hype over 130gr – 150gr bullets from a .264-cal at less than 3000 fps for large and potentially dangerous game is probably an understatement, and I’ll present my argument to state why.

I well recall reading a statement by Jack O’Conner that said, “I became cautious after that”. After what? He was discussing rifles and loads for grizzly/brown bear, and in the context of a .270 Winchester. He never went into details of what happened, but the fact that he’d successfully used his pet .270 Win on grizzle/brown bear in the past, but on the occasion that caused him to be cautious with a .270 in such a context, he in essence was admitting that the .277- cal was not the best choice for some situations that didn’t neatly fit the circumstances of his previous successes involving dangerous bruins.

FIRSTLY: The rate-of-twist of a rifle’s barrel has historically been chosen to stabilize suitable bullets for specific tasks in game hunting. For example: The honorable military cartridge of 1903 – 06, universally known as the .30-06 Springfield in sporters, has traditionally had a 1 in 10″ twist rate. For most bullet weights that works adequately for 125s to 220s. That has perhaps made the .30-06 the best known and useful rifle/cartridge since it became commercially available world-wide for general big game hunting. Of course, on the upper side it has now to compete with .300 mags, and on the lower end the ubiquitous .308 Winchester. But I don’t see a majority of .30-06 owners ditching them in favour of one of the others. They may purchase one or more of the .30-06 competitors, but still cling to their -06, that’s my take anyway.

So what does a 6.5 Creedmoor offer over the ole .30-06? A very good question!

According to NOSLER 9 reloading guide:

The 6.5 Creedmoor from a 24″, and a 150gr ABLR at 2725 fps makes 2473 ft-lbs at the muzzle. BC = .634; SD = .307

The .30-06 from a 24″, and a 210gr ABLR at 2652 fps makes 3279 ft-lbs at the muzzle. BC = .661; SD = .316

The so-called “advantage” of the 6.5 C is less recoil and just as effective on deer-size game to ~500 yds. Such a claim has to be backed up by results, and apparently it has in the hands of expert shooters.

Note 1: I’m far from certain how many deer hunters actually hunt deer where they could be shot at 500+ yards, but my longest shot on a 400 lb buck was at 153 yds, and that resulted in a lost buck because of that particular Nosler BT 165gr (from my .30-06) that broke up on a shoulder hit! It was finally claimed by other hunters across a swamp on another property. How far away was that? Probably 350 yds. In approximately 70 years of hunting, and having lived and hunted in four Canadian provinces on the east end of Canada, the only place I’ve hunted where a shot could have been taken on a whitetail at 500 yds was the far north of Ontario, our home province since 1975. And no way would I ever think of pursuing white-tailed deer at 1600 klms from home base! Though I did shoot a moose there – that’s a different subject.

< I never saw a deer track here, though moose were travelling over this mountain. On the far side was a sheer cliff drop-off, straight down. We were in Ontario’s Far North, 1000 miles from home – still in Ontario.

But here are the results from those 2 rifle crtridges at 500 yds:

the 6.5 Creed at 500 yds = 2060 fps/1413 ft-lbs

the .30-06 Springfield at 500 yds = 2023 fps/1907 ft-lbs

• So the actual gap in velocity between the “Creed” firing a 150gr and the .30-06 the 210gr has shrunk from an initial 73 fps to 37 fps at 500 yds. And the energy gap between the 6.5 Creed at MV to 500 yds is 57% energy retained, or 43% lost. For the .30-06 it is 58% retained or 42% lost.

Note 2: True, on “deer- size” game the 6.5 Creedmoor should be as effective, and with less recoil. Since the majority of medium-size game hunting in North America involves whitetails, a .30-06 is not needed for game less that about 400 lbs. My calculations are that 1413 ft-lbs from a 150gr/.264″, with mono bullets placed “right” should qualify for live non-dangerous game to around 500 lbs. That might include some elk.

“might” implies under ideal conditions. But there’s the rub! How many qualify for such a shot, and under what conditions? A test was shown on YouTube where the promoter invited select shooters using their expensive target rifles, and a stand-up rest, to hit the vital area of a simulated deer within an 8″ circle representing the heart area at 500 yards. Of the eight or so shooters only one managed to place the shot within that circle, and that was after given a second attempt. Keep in mind that conditions were far from actual hunting conditions: the “deer” wasn’t moving, some steady cross wind of less than 10 mph, very expensive target-quality rifles and carefully fabricated precision handloads were used by “experts”. The loads chosen by the individual shooters were prime for their “target” rifles – suitable for deer-size game.

Note 3: We also need to consider that the closer the animal is to the shooter, both precision shooting and bullet energy increase significantly. There’s little doubt, therefore, that the 6.5 Creed is more than adequate for the largest of whitetails when aimed correctly and using a good bullet. But the distinction between the two candidate cartridges diverge rather dramatically the closer the game is to their muzzles. I think that the Swedes have proven their 6.5 x 55s can bring down certain moose with precision shooting and ranges that are not extended. But they have traditionally used their long RN 156 or 160s with high sectional densities of .328! And experience has long proven their penetration abilities.

But regarding those extra “long range” missiles in a 6.5 or a .30-06: “Caution” should be the watchword! For instance, at 200 yards the 30-06/210gr is still hitting at over 2300 fps. Since that bullet is an ABLR, its nose is more frangeble and hence more prone to rapid overexpansion hindering penetration. The same being true for the 6.5 ABLR which has even higher impact velocity. So those ABLRs that are so impressive at long range may actually “fragment” or over-expand at usual hunting ranges for whatever game is being pursued. I’d not test them on mature moose, elk or bears inside 250 yards where most medium – large game are actually shot.

This is quite typical of my hunting area for the last four decades. I was seated in that chair because in front of me was a ground blind for bear hunting. It’s on a ridge about a hundred yards or so from a main highway. Actually, I was deer hunting with my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 loaded with the 300gr Barnes TSX at +2600 fps. The location is about 2 miles (3.5 km) from my main bear-bait site on the opposite side of the highway, on a side dirt road.

While dedicated shooters of the 6.5s tout the BCs of those bullets being “game changers”, please keep in mind their “intended use”: i.e. shooting game at unusually long ranges! When using Nosler’s own Partition bullets, for example, or the Barnes TSX or TTSX’s, most cartridges excel where 90% of game are actually shot.

Killed a good bear with one of these from a single-shot NEF .45-70.

< My first bear with this from my first 1895 Marlin: a 400gr Speer at 1865 fps. Range was 100 yds.

So that’s my beef with toting those high ballistic coefficient numbers – they’re mostly impractical in the real world. In spite of that truth, a serious number (if one believes the Internet) use them for extra – “long-range” work, not only on whitetails, but elk to unseemly ranges of 700 plus yards!

Of course, there are 6.5s like the Creedmoor and then there are these: 6.5-284 Norma and 6.5 PRC. Of course, the .264 Win Mag is still offered by Winchester (or whoever owns that brand), as well as the 6.5 Rem Mag and .260 Rem.

All of a sudden, the .264s have been rediscovered! I’ve owned none of them except the 6.5 x 55 Swede in a very nice Sako – mainly for varmints. The bullets are not wide enough or heavy enough for thick timber and bush conditions – I found that out the hard way! So I moved on to large bores and magnums with adequate velocities for big game like moose and bear. And no harm was experienced in using them on lesser game as well.

I quit whitetail deer hunting some time ago due to the aforementioned physical conditions that prevail on Crown Land with too many hunters, and with some hunters using hounds. I’ve had a few invites on private property using a shotgun but it was obvious that the land owner and family/friends had priorities. In some of those cases they wanted the killing of bears however. . . “all of ’em!”

So I focused on larger game and predators. Still do.

A lot of moose and bears have been harvested using a .30-30. Of course that was back-in-the-day! And little mention is made of how many were lost after wounding.

I know a man, who is a friend of our two oldest sons, who went on a moose hunt in the north of our province several years ago, and took the “family rifle” that his dad used in defence of his apiary against bears . It was a .30-30. After emptying the rifle on a moose (unsure if it was a cow or bull) and reloading it he managed to get the moose on the ground with lots of holes that spued red liquid. He harvested a moose with a .30-30! Yippee!

With good reason most don’t try that today! We live in better times economically, and with better sense.

Ballistics of a 20″ Winchester M94 in .30-30 (handloads) firing a 170gr FP at 2200 fps (max) BC =.189/SD = .256. A bull moose at 100 yds and weighing 1100 lbs, quartering away and on the move, walking, and in 10 seconds will be entering thick bush. . . The hunter raises his M94, takes aim and fires, what could we expect under those conditions? That bullet is good enough at that MV so as not to worry too much about complete fragmentation unless heavy bone is hit.

At 100 yds the 170gr/.308 -cal will (according to Hornady) be making about 1790 fps/1210 ft-lbs. Hornady recommends that bullet for “medium game” which excludes moose, elk and bear. It’s a deer hunting rifle at best even at relatively close ranges. I give it a rating of 23 TE at 100 yds under ideal conditions. A quartering angle going away is not good – broadside would be much better – and especialy if the moose was standing still. Multiple shots into the lungs, or a heart-lung shot would make a very sick moose,

< Not my moose, but very similar to an experience I had back in 1994 – 1995. I was watching a bear bait in a remote part of our province, and Norm Easto was my guide/outfitter. A bull moose like that showed up behind me at about that distance. I stood, facing him with my 1895 Marlin, and shouted “Get out of here!”. It was spring, not during the fall moose-hunt season. But he had a full rack and left though rather grumpy! I never flinched as I raised my rifle and pointed it at him!

Our oldest son’s FIL has killed many moose (not all mature bulls) including calves and cows, with a .30-30. But he lived where the moose lived, knew where they were and placed shots correctly. Yes the .30-30 can kill a moose under particular circumstances and in the hands of an experienced and confident hunter who understands it’s limits. The 23 TE that I give it within 100 yds using a properly constructed bullet in good hands implies a clean hit in the vitals. But a quartering away shot on a moose that will quickly disappear in thick bush rates a 1/2 of 23 or about 12.5 x 18.5 = 231 lbs. 12.5 represents less than an optimum angle (a full on broadside within range rates a 25) and 18.5 less than a perfect shot given the other conditions of a “rushed shot” and without a rest for the rifle. Such a shot would likely be effective on most deer, and some small bears, but not the largest “deer” (moose) or bears.

I carried my .375 H&H for bear last year because he was dominant for the area and weighed 500+ lbs. And ideal conditions weren’t possible given the terrain, and the bear was on the move when I finally saw him for about 20 seconds. But I would have fired at 20 -25 yds with crosshairs on him if I’d wanted a trophy or 500+lb bear for whatever serious reason – which I didn’t. But I felt ample protection from that .375 H&H (300gr SBT at 2674 fps/4762 ft-lbs). At 25 yds the 300gr would still be making over 2600 fps, but the angle would have been less than good on a mobile bear! Yet a 300gr at +2600 fps would have done him no good even from a high-angle shot. That’s why I choose “more than enough” for ideal conditions – because they might turn out to be far less than ideal! If I’d let that bear see me (he did smell me) what would his response have been? I didn’t know and didn’t want to find out because I might have had to shoot him, so I left the scene. Nonetheless, I was happy for my choice of the .375 H&H. After all, the .375 H&H is said to be a “perfect choice” for lion, the largest of which will weigh less than “my bear” of 2024! But some say that a lion is “dangerous game” while a black bear is only “potentially dangerous”. Tell that to the Alaskan 60 year-old man who was recently killed just outside his home by a yearling black bear that weighed 70 lbs! That problem being that he can’t hear what you’r saying because he’s dead!

I’ve discussed some terminal ballistics from 6.5 Creedmoors, .30-06’s, .30-30s and the .375 H&H as perhaps representative of 4 classes of hunting rifles – not in any particular order. But if I did, they’d be this: .30-30, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30-06 and .375 H&H. Also rifle philosophy of some others in our post-modern era along with my own. It comes down to our perspectives, experiences, needs and analyses of raw physical data and real results. It’s not a situation of the same shoe fitting all comfortably! There are too many variables, including who you are and who I am.

Take care and be safe out there!

Till the next. . . . . The issue of recoil was briefly alluded to in this piece, with no specifics given. But I think it would be understood that of the 4 rifles: .30-30, 6.5C, .30-06 and .375 H&H, the .30-30 would have the least and the .375 H&H the most. So in our next presentation I’ll go into more detail of why that’s so, and how to deal with it.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Ageing and Rifle Recoil . . .

In thinking matters through, that title may be somewhat misleading, though it is part and parcel of the gist of what I’m about to launch at this time.

< You’ve perhaps seen this pic before. I was in my seventies, a thousand miles (1600 klms) from home on a moose hunt with a friend. I’d killed a moose here, with son Phil, a decade earlier using my .340 Wby. This time the rifle was my CZ550 in .458 Win firing 350gr TSX’s at ~2700 fps. The rifle ready weighed 11 lbs and I weighed 190 lbs soaking wet. The rifle never seemed a burden, nor it’s recoil at ~ 51 ft-lbs. Those were the least of concerns. We came close to catching up with an adult moose but that didn’t happen. Also many large black bears in the area as they were mostly left alone by moose hunters if they saw one. Was that too much gun and recoil? I didn’t think so at the time, and I felt fully prepared for whatever might show up within 400 yds.

You know how the Internet works: If you do a frequent search for how to grow apple trees, for decades later you may still get ads about apple trees and offers to sell you the most delicious species and brand from “our store”.

Well, I do a lot of writing about black bears and suitable rifle/cartridges for hunting them. So very recently I saw a YouTube video on a successful black bear hunt by a gentleman of 97 years! And since I’ll only be 90 in December of this year (2025), I thought “there’s still hope for me” beyond 90. . . Maybe!

And over my black bear hunting experiences for the past 4 decades, I’ve dreamed and planned for that “perfect rig”! But inevitably we age! I was in my forties then and soon I’ll be 90! Is what I dreampt and planned for then still ideal for a ninety-plus year old? Or even a seventy-plus?

There is that matter of recoil and weight to be squarely faced and dealt with!

How have I done that, and what would I choose for today and on into the future should I want to shoot another bear at age 97? Of course, that assumes my soul and spirit is still on this planet, and both my body and mind is as capable as that 97 year old who shot and killed a good bear on his own property finally after 9 years of applications!

To be honest, I wanted to see a good clear pic of that man and his bear. And that was provided in the piece. The bear made it into the woods and by then it was dark. He called a lady friend, who was much younger and lived some distance from him. She told him to not attempt a search alone, but wait until she arrived. She was also a hunter. Longer story, much shorter, is that together they found the dead bear about 40 yards into the woods, cleaned it up and waited until daylight for retrieval with some help from neighbours and friends.

That last sentence is a very important detail!

< Even this bear was too much for me to deal with alone, especially a decade ago at age 79. It’s the 7′ tall one of which a pic has been presented a few times.

The rifle and load of the 97 year-0ld? Didn’t notice that so much as it was, I think, a common big game rifle in either .270 or .30-06. He was a life-time hunter living on farm land – another not insignificant detail as he’d made application for 9 previous years before getting a permit to shoot a bear on his own property where he was baiting. The first bear to show up was immature followed almost immediately by a mature male black bear that he shot and harvested with help from friends and neighbours.

He did look to be in very good condition and health for his years.

This article isn’t intended to say that all hunters should aim to live for a full century. Ageing depends on many factors that can’t all be discussed here, but “a healthy life style” can add months if not years. And, of course, that means not only healthy physical activities but also healthy spirit and mind activities. An adult addicted to alcohol, drugs or pornography will not have a healthy mind and body! Yeah, I know some men will bring up somebody they “know” who’s lived that life style and lived to be a hundred! But how many? Consider the late Jimmy Carter who was still doing good as a centenarian! Actual statistics favour those who have looked after themselves in a godly manner! Then, of course, there’s the purpose of the Almighty Creator who has determined our days. Yep, forknowledge of advances in the medical world taken into consideration! Here’s a question from The Bible: “Why die before your time?” asked in regard to those who abuse themselves or others. There is that matter of God’s judgment on some “before their time” while on others his mercy and patience endures until their final breath. That’s God’s perogative, not ours! He is just in judgment and merciful to the penitant. Consider the two thieves, one on each side of Jesus in his crucifixion. The one showed repentance and faith in these words:”Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom”. Jesus answered: “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”. The other remained hardened and scorned Christ! No one can scorn Jesus and expect to see Heaven!

As I’ve clearly expressed my view and philosophy of why I’ve chosen the rifles and their cartridges that I have had over nearly 7 decades, I’ll not insist on that for others, but remind them that IF they do much hunting of large and/or dangerous species they should be fully prepared for all challenges from as yet unseen game, the terrain and the weather. “. . . . . from as yet unseen game” recently caused the untimely death of the Texas cattleman in Africa as a Cape buff “came out of nowhere” and killed him!

On our side of the water, that could be a moose, bear, cougar or wolves! And in 85% of those cases it’s standing on your hind legs and shooting from offhand!

Where I hunt, and have hunted, we have all of those! I’m with Bob Hagel in his dictum: “We should choose a rifle for the potential worst case scenario, not the best!” If not an exact quote, then that’s the intent!

A grey wolf

We shouldn’t assume that everything will go as “planned”! That is, that the moose and white-tailed hunters who come into the same area, after I’m done with the bear hunt, will never have a surprise encounter with that 500-plus pound dominant black bear that I’ve been feeding desserts to for the past 3 seasons!

A couple of years ago as I’d been doing some pre-season scouting of my general hunting area in Haliburton Highlands, I ran into a couple of mature grouse hunters who asked me where all the grouse had gone. They added that they’ve hunted that area for grouse for many years and now there were none! Why? I suggested they find another location because where they’d been hunting was prime bear country. They were really very surprised, saying in all those former years they hadn’t seen a single bear! Both were toting shotguns with bird shot! After our conversation they appeared very nervous and got into their vehicle to move on to another location that I suggested to them. It was a more open area with less chance of a surprise encounter with a potential agressive black bear.

I’ve been around bears and in their territories for about 1/2 of my life, yet never saw them until I started bear-bait sites in their living quarters. And I’ve just finished a short series on Dominant Black Bears that all lived within that region of about 40 sq-miles. Then there was at least one other that was very dangerous, that my partner Ken and I never saw but was always nearby and messing with our hunt on private property. Finally, he killed a stallion on that property after darkness had arrived on the last day of our hunt.

Most hunters after moose and deer, or birds, never see a bear but they’re there!

With that knowledge, what should my weapon be? Well, I’m attracted to power, and lots of it! But, given the preamble, what is a sensible choice for myself? Generally, I think a MEDIUM is about right, and a big bore for special occasions. I have both, as subscribers to these blogs are aware. A Ruger No.1H in .458 Win is my Big Bore. A .375 H&H and a .35 Whelen are my mediums. All three have gone bear hunting at my current location over the past three seasons, and a 4th this season (2025). Not all have gone every year but one in particular for each year plus the .35 Whelen for scouting, toting in bait and in 2023 was the main rifle.

I’ve shot bears with both a .35 Whelen and .458 in the past but not with the current rifles, and never with a .375 H&H though I did tote an M70 in .375 H&H for both moose and bear without scoring. That was with my first .375 H&H of many years ago.

Though I’ve owned .338 Win Mags, a .340 Wby (rechambered from a .338 Win) and killed a bull moose with it, and now my 3rd .375 H&H, and a 9.3 x 62, my favorite of those was the 9.3 x 62 that replaced all mediums. Over a year has past since I made a gift of it to my oldest son along with dies, brass, bullets and powder. With a bore that is only 0.009″ less in diameter (.366-cal), and bullets of comparative weight at only about 100 fps slower, it could basically do whatever a .375 H&H was capable of from factory spec ammo. But now with both a .35 Whelen and a .375 H&H I don’t need another 9.3 x 62.

Both my .35 Whelen and .375 H&H have ballistics that far outpace factory fodder in those numbers. Both have 22″ barrels, and with experienced knowhow from the best modern powders each is capable of mimicking the ballistics of cartridges considered by both novices and “experts” alike as being superior.

I have considerable previous handloading experience with both .338 Win Mags and .375 H&Hs – both in short and long barrels for each – 20″ and 26″ in .338, and 26″ and 22″ in the .375 H&H prior to owning my current crop of mediums.

RL-15 and IMR4320 both gave nearly identical results from my former A-Bolt SS LH in .375 H&H, firing 300s from the 26″ barrel at ~2700 fps. It had a tight-fast barrel. Those were “book loads”.

My current .375 H&H is a Zastava M70 with a Mauser action and a 22″ barrel. It can duplicate those results from the former A-Bolt with its 26″ barrel shooting 300s as it too has a “fast barrel” and profits from better modern powders in RL-17, StaBALL 6.5, and CFE-223 for 250s at 2850 – 2900 fps. Those are all double-base powders with higher energy but not higher psi. How is that possible? By maintaining peak pressure longer and using spherical propellants that allows more in the cartridge cases without compression. Also, in my .35 Whelen, single-shot, COL isn’t limited by an interior magazine. The former 225gr X-Bullet can be seated to a COL of 3.5 inches that doesn’t cramp space by its long length in a standard length (.30-06 length) action. And the throat has ample freedom to allow that. So also with my .458 Win Mag in a Ruger No.1H. The M70 Zastava in .375 H&H, on the other hand, is limited to SAMMI specs with an action restricted to 3.6″ COL.

< Here is an exception to using a single-shot rifle for big and potentially dangerous game. It’s my M70 Zastava in .375 H&H, and last year’s main rifle for the bear hunt. In addition to lone grey wolf’s, there are packs of hybrids: a cross between wolves and eastern coyotes. That has been confirmed by DNA analysis. They are smaller than the grey wolf but more agressive and travel in packs. They are quite common in Eastern Canada, formerly known as “brush wolves” and/or “coy dogs”. Here in Ontario they have recently been protected by the government in particular areas within Algonquin Park and townships immediately surrounding the Park. That was done by a government official who claimed (without biological evidence) that they were in danger of extinction, and had them designated as “The Algonquin Wolf” to the dismay of hunters, residents, farmers, and owners of cattle and sheep. Fortunitely, the area I hunt is open to hunt them during the fall and winter months, and of course cattlemen and sheep hearders can shoot them on sight. But they are dangerous for the aforementioned as well as humans. So, if I were specifically hunting wolf hybrids, I’d want a repeating rifle, not a single-shot. And the best that I currently have would be my semi Remington in .22LR with the 10-shot clip. It would be adequate for taking down a couple, and any others would scatter and not hang around.

My oldest brother, Dave, and I with our wives, once owned a lake property in Central New Brunswick. We built a couple of cabins on it and vacationed there for about twenty years in summer or fall. There was a lot of wild game in the area, including “brush wolves”. The former owner of the property warned us of their presence and said they were dangerous. And a next over property owner claimed he’d been chased by them and barely escaped. In more recent times a young college student from Cape Briton Island, Nova Scotia, was out jogging and was killed by a couple of them at least.

I mention all that simply to say that I must be very aware of my situation, not only due to bears but hybrid wolves as well. I’ve seen some of their work in a deer kill only ~60 yards from where I was deer hunting. I also heard it. Early the following morning, I saw ravens flying over the area and concluded the deer didn’t survive nor her fawn. I went into that thick bush and only pieces of fur and a blood stained ground 15 ft in diameter remained where there had been a foot of snow.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

For the .35 Whelen I also use CFE-223 exclusively for both the 225gr AB and 250gr Partition. And that from a 22″ premium-grade barrel at 2840 fps for the 225s and 2709 fps for the 250 Partitions. That 250 Partition load, btw, equals my results from the former 9.3 x 62 firing the 250gr AB that killed a trophy-quality black bear at 83 yds with a single shot. It went 20 yds and left a massive blood trail.

RECOIL and WEIGHT

Recoil: of the .375 H&H firing the 300gr TSX or 300gr Sierra BT at 2675 – 2700 fps = 45 ft-lbs (no brake).

Recoil: of the .375 H&H firing the 250gr TTSX at 2850 fps = 38 ft-lbs (no brake).

Recoil: of the .35 Whelen firing the 225 AB at 2840 fps = 37 ft-lbs, minus 7 for the brake = 30 ft-lbs

Recoil: of the .35 Whelen firing the 250 Partition at 2709 fps = 37 ft-lbs, minus 7 for the brake = 30 ft-lbs

Weight: of the .375 H&H ready to hunt with scope, 3 cartridges in magazine and nylon sling = 10 lbs

Weight: of the .35 Whelen ready to hunt with scope, one in the chamber, three in a stock cartridge holder and nylon sling = 8.25 lbs (This is my scouting and walk-about rifle).

Some might discredit my .35 Whelen, being a so-called “single-shot”. But that’s a misnomer because every rifle is a single-shooter until a second or third or fourth is loaded into the chamber, then aimed and fired. But depending on how much experience a shooter has under adverse circumstances, those “extra” cartridges could become an Achilles heel! How so? In rushing that first shot, consciously or unconsciously, counting on multiple available shots in a magazine under the bolt! Think it doesn’t happen? I guess you haven’t watched as many African safari videos as I have over the past 8 months of recent ones. Then, there’s the matter of fumbling ammo onto the ground or can’t retrieve it from a belt or pocket when the PH shouts “RELOAD!”, with black death a few yards away and blood pouring from vents created in non-immediately-lethal areas!

“Repeating rifles” are sure and certain death on paper targets! And I’ve owned lots of ’em! But how many times have they been practical in my actual hunting experiences over the past 7 decades? If more than one is actually needed then perhaps I should do a reality check on my composure in aiming and squeezing the trigger. First off, if a second shot is quickly needed then I misplaced the first shot – right? Or I’ve chosen the wrong rifle/cartridge combo! Or perhaps I’m unfamiliar with it. . . . or afraid of it. . . . or “whatever”.

I’m not against so-called “repeaters” as I’ve toted more than a few into game country. However, I probably could count on one hand the times I’ve actually needed a second shot on anything and most of those very few times was my fault, not the rifle’s – and I include “single-shots” in that number.

“It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have” is a favorite excuse of many. I’d reword that because it’s flawed, though I understand its intent. To “not have” should never happen! So that intent assumes a rifle and load that will work under all stresses and conditions, needed or not! That I believe was the intent of Hagel’s dictum! Guides, outfitters and PH’s usually choose a “repeater” for practical reasons in either bolt-action format or doubles. I can understand that as often they have to deal with double-trouble caused by the client, and at close quarters. Most shooters, hunters, clients, etc, are whitetail deer hunters where bows, BP and “single-shots” are more than adequate. Little to no danger involved except the “hunter”, himself/herself may be the greatest source of danger to themselves – tripping over a rock or falling from a tree stand, etc, when and where that has nothing to do with a decision over type of lethal power.

I’ve been, and will be back in the woods where that huge bear and I met last season on Oct 15/25. The rifle in hand has been and will be that .35 Whelen that shoots one-at-a-time. That doesn’t make it a non-repeating rifle! I carry that rifle from vehicle to 15 yards into the woods before uncasing it and loading one into the chamber and three others into the stock cartridge holder. One or perhaps two of them might be needed in case the bear is not DRT, but runs off a bit for 20 -30 yds, in which case I’ll have ample time for a reload. If more than 2 is needed, it’s my fault not the rifle’s or game’s fault!

The fault could be: 1) nervousness/fear; 2) poor judgment in timing of first shot; 3) bad choice of bullet/cartridge; 4) hitting an unseen object between shooter and game; 5) impatience (common fault).

So I consider it incumbent on myself to be fully responsible and prepared for consequences when I choose to hunt game: a) that’s potentially dangerous; b) in terrain that’s challenging or wild; c) solo; d) a predator; e) or over 50 lbs of wolf, cougar or bear.

Recently, I read of an able-bodied man in Alaska who was killed by a 70 lb black bear just outside his home. And I’ve tracked the same wolf in deep snow (with snowshoes on) for several winters that killed deer for a living. It was black and weighed more that 100 lbs. Is a lone wolf potentially a danger to a lone hunter? That one killed deer that outweighed him by 2x, and one he attempted to kill was a monster at close to 300 lbs in mid winter. That buck still had a rack but that wasn’t the end of that story. . . I just couldn’t follow any longer in deep snow despite having snowshoes on.

Following three wolves – not the one mentioned above – that were only moments ahead of me. The rifle in hand was my Ruger 96/44, lever-action in .44 Rem Mag.

From experience, I generally find that larger calibers with more than adequate power have worked best for what I hunt and where, especially if solo. Otherwise, I prefer a magnum, especially the .300 Win or secondly a 7mm Remington Magnum. And their power doesn’t have to be reserved to so-called “long-range”. They hit plenty hard up close employing their heavy-weight projectiles: i.e. – 175gr Partitions in the 7 mags, both Rem and Wby; and 200gr Partitions or ABs in the 300 Win, at close to 3000 fps in each.

Recoil isn’t a consideration in either. . . but keep weight at or below 8.5 lbs ready to hunt. If for some strange reason I could only have a 7 Rem Mag, I wouldn’t cry, but I’d really much prefer a .300 Win. . . . best handloads for each.

For perspective, a .300 Win can make up to 4000 ft-lbs KE at the muzzle; a 7 Rem Mag up to about 3500 ft-lbs, and a .30-06 about 3300 ft-lbs, all with best handloads. But 4000 ft-lbs from a .30-caliber is not the same or equal to 4000 ft-lbs from a .358 or .375 calibers. Next time we’ll discuss why.

Till the next: How to judge the potential effect of a bullet at impact velocity. Impact velocity is a consequence of three factors: MV, BC and distance to impact. Caliber determines bullet weight, hence energy at impact velocity. A 400gr at the same impact velocity as a 200gr will have twice its energy, but also twice its momentum. Of course, it’s highly unlikely that a 200gr will be fired from the same rifle as a 400gr which means an important distinction in calibers, that also is a very significant factor in terminal ballistics.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL