Comparing The .35 Whelen and The .338 Winchester Magnum

I like ’em both, and have owned three of each. We know what they’ve done and can do in the hunting world, so there’s little point in argueing a case for one over the other in that regard. So what’s left to consider by way of comparison?

The .35 Whelen predates the .338 Win Mag by thirty-six years so it has a head start. But no rifle or ammo company legitimized it until Remington did so in 1988. By that time the .338 had an advantage of thirty years of commercial support that was lacking for the Whelen. Technical knowledge for the Whelen ultimately rested on the shoulders of wildcatters and experimenters.

Nonetheless, the .35 Whelen not only survived but was praised by some very experienced writers in the sport. It seemed to fill a niche that to that point in time was not met by the big ammo and rifle companies, but was a steady order for custom rifle builders.

It was that good in the view and experience of several influential hunters. Yet there were a number of hurdles to be overcome before general acceptance by the hunting public: 1) A lack of readily available quality bullets in .35-caliber, especially suitable for the potential power of the .35 Whelen, and heavier than 200 grains; 2) A lack of recognition and promotion by the sporting press; 3) The belief that .333 caliber was better due to O’Neil, Keith and Hopkins (OKH) who promoted it, and 4) .333-caliber had slightly better downrange ballistics due to better SDs and BCs per equal bullet weights because of being a smaller caliber (.338-cal was adopted by Winchester for their magnum). And, to add a fifth obstacle: A poor understanding of how to measure PSI as reflected in Remington’s standard of 2400 fps for a 250gr, that only made 2247 fps for ten over my Chrony!

Enter the new era! Since the production of SPEER’s reloading manual #14, there’s been quite a stir over their published results for their 250gr HC at ~2700 fps and their 220gr FP at up to 2828 fps/3908 ft-lbs, using relatively new and untried propellants in the .35 Whelen. Four of the best in relative burn rates were: IMR 8208 XBR, Alliant Pro Varmint, CFE 223 and Alliant 2000-MR. Alliant Pro Varmint recorded the highest MV for the 220gr at 2828 fps, and CFE 223 the second highest at 2786 fps. COL was 3.060″ for the 220gr which meant it was seated to the cannelure. Mention was made of that bullet in a recent blog as perfect for the .356 Winchester for which it was origional created. I’ve loaded it for my son’s .356 at far less MV than what is possible from a .35 Whelen – in fact I’d NEVER load it to +2800 fps for my Whelen, or even close to that as, first of all, it was made for a high of around 2400 fps, and secondly, the 225s made for the Whelen have better-tougher construction and much higher BCs. But from a .356 at 2200 to 2400 fps it’s dynamite! My load for Brent’s rifle took a nice buck last year and a better one this year at 43 yards:

<It was walking towards him and he shot it at 43 yards in the neck. MV was ~2245 and impact was ~ 2124/2203 ft-lbs – plenty for an Alaskan bull moose or grizzly at that range = 50TE

<Four vertebrae demolished

<And only 10 lbs of neck and torso meat saved as deer burger!

<Remains of the Speer 220gr found in torso.

As previously reported in these pages, many .35 Whelen aficionados were already loading their rifles to 2550 – 2600 fps for 250 grainers, pre 1988 when it was legitimized by Remington at Saami. But no one knew at what pressures. It finally came out that 52,000 CUP was 62,000 PSI, and a couple or three NEW powders were making 2700 fps possible for particular 250 grainers from 24″ barrels within specs! So from a 22″, 2650 fps is likely very reasonable from particular barrels and components in bullets and powders. But the only way to measure that is by Col. Whelen’s method – lacking a lab for testing individual rifles and loads – by appearances of how everything worked: The rifle’s action and fired cases! Unless we go to the expense of strain guages and/or QuickLoad, that’s all that’s left! Manuals, you say! Oh yeah, they’re OK, but just another tool that may confound and confuse issues… how many have you used that agree with each other?

I’m still old school when it comes to that… primer pockets, how many case firings, case head expansion, bolt lift, etc. In my view from forty-plus years of making my own from the .22 Hornet to the mighty .458 Win Mag, I’ve not come across readily accessible science better than that! Short of the rifle blowing-up, after firing if spent primers fall out, that’s WAY TOO MUCH pressure! If the bolt handle has to be hit with a mallet to open, that’s WAY TOO MUCH pressure! Etc. You get the picture: I like, for most cartridges, a case life of five firings, minimum, unless it’s evident from former experience that a particular lot of cases is “soft” or “hard”. I’ve had both and adjust expectations accordingly.

Some say they dislike “compressed charges”, without rational thought or research. Many loads in manuals (which “they” follow as “gospel”) have hundreds of “compressed loads”, and at times by nearly 120%!

Right now, in my .35 Whelen, cases that have been fired six times could be used a couple more times at “max”- that I’ve settled on as “max”. There’s absolutely NOTHING in my manuals that is helpful in that regard, except “old school” methodology! I’ve read some helpful “news” online, but even that is significantly variable as to what others are doing in their experiments! I “neck size” my Rem .35 Whelen brass, and I’m sure that has spared over-working of the cases. The point is, we are individual handloaders who have our own somewhat limited thoughts and goals for a rifle, its chambering and expected results. No two individuals will produce or get identical results from two of anything – like cooking recipes, or handloading recipes!

My .35 Whelen cases, after neck sizing, will hold 70 grains of CFE 223 (double-base ball powder) with very mild compression when a 225gr AccuBond is seated to 3.45″ COL. The same case will hold 67 grains of RL-17 (double-base stick powder which is more bulky), with significantly more compression in seating the same bullet to 3.45″ COL. Supposedly, RL-17 is much slower than CFE 223, but pressure “signs” would not suggest that in this combination. On the contrary, CFE 223 “appears” to have a SLOWER burn rate in this combination which means more of it can be useful for a higher MV at less pressure. 57 grains of anything will NOT bring the best from this old girl!

There are a few things I know for certain, and that is that my .35 Whelen is sturdily built, relatively light and handy, very accurate, and powerful enough for my expectations and purposes. But at least for now, I’ll stick with it’s current hunting load: 225gr AccuBond at 2850 fps MV/4059 ft-lbs and sub-MOA. Keeping in mind that’s from a 22″ barrel, then how would that compare with a 22″- .338 Winchester Magnum? (As I type this there are two Tikka T3 Lites in .338 Win Mag for sale at Epps – where I bought an identical rifle in 2011 chambered in 9.3 x 62, but with 22.4″ barrel instead of the 24.4″ on the .338s.)

Nosler gives credit for the 225gr AccuBond in .338″ from a 24″ .338 Win Mag Wiseman test barrel at 2882 fps. They used Winchester cases, Fed 215 primers, 71.5 grains of IMR4350, and a 3.34″ COL. Typically, a test barrel will give higher results than run of the mill factory rifles, but we’ll not discount that. In good faith we’ll give full credit. But, in good faith we must also subtract the potential effect of the barrel loosing a couple of inches to make matters more equitable. And, a 22″ Win Mag would be slightly handier. But a reasonable loss from less 2-inches might well be 25 fps per inch = 2882 – 50 = 2832 fps from the 225gr AccuBond.

That’s pretty close to my .35 Whelen at 2850 fps, which is somewhat variable from several trials at the range which, in any case, is always expected. But a test of 70 grains of CFE 223 upped the MV to 2874 without negatives, so I’ll go with that for my boomer, calling it 2875 (looking neater).

< The 225gr AB on the right at 3.45″ COL with 69 grains of CFE 223. On the left is a former load for my Rem 7400, reloaded with RL-15 at 3.34″ with the old 225gr Nosler BT.

The structures of the two 225gr ABs would be similar, except for the differences in SD and BC, which in those two the .338 has a distinct downrange advantage with an SD of .281 and a .550 BC vs .251 SD and .421 BC for the .358-caliber. In simple terms, the .358-cal is shorter and fatter making it less aerodynamic. BUT! At least one user of the 225/.358 says that the REAL BC of the .35-cal is between .460 – .470 BC in his shooting to 700 yards! And that’s believable to me since Nosler downgraded it due to some insability from their test barrel – it didn’t “go to sleep” until it reached the 100 yard marker. But that’s a problem with the rifling in one barrel! Yet the experience of others, including myself, have had nothing but perfect .358″ holes in targets at 50 yards!

If the BC of their 225 Partition in .358″ is truly .430, then the 225 AB should be much higher due to it’s more aerodynamic shape, as is the case with the two 225gr .338″ at .454 for the Partition and .550 for the AccuBond! That’s a difference of nearly 100 points, why not the same for the 225 AB vs the 225 Partition in .358-caliber? If so, then that would make the 225gr AB with a BC of around .530, which makes more sense. Nonetheless, since the sectional density (SD) of a bullet is a major player in its ballistic coefficient (BC), I’ll base my conclusion of what the real BC for the 225 AB in .358 should be, given the same graphics. The 225 AB in .358-cal has an SD of .251 (regardless of profile), and the 225 AB in .338-cal has an SD of .281, so the .358-cal 225 is 89% in SD of the .338-cal SD in 225gr. So… 89% of the .338’s BC of .550 = .490 BC for the 225gr AB in .358-cal. Voila, I’m going with that!

Regardless, either one in the .338 Win or .35 Whelen is impressive in results at long distances. Yet Nosler’s manual notes that the most accurate load for the 225gr AccuBond in .338 was from 74 grains of RL-19 at 2782 fps with a load density of 105%. I too have exerienced that RL-19 gave best overall results from my .338 Win Mags – and in general for 225s which proved more challenging in that regard.

The .35 Whelen – zero: non specific depending on scope setting and range intended. Ambient conditions: my hunting areas in fall/spring. elevation: 1200 ft, temp 60*, RH = 60%

Bullet: 225 AccuBond

SD = .251

BC = .490

MV = 2875 fps/4129 ft-lbs (Hunting load = 2840 fps from 69 grains CFE 223. Test load of 70 grains CFE 223 = 2875 fps)

100 = 2695 fps/3627 ft-lbs

200 = 2522 fps/3177 ft-lbs

300 = 2355 fps/2771 ft-lbs

400 = 2195 fps/2407 ft-lbs

500 = 2041 fps/2081 ft-lbs

600 = 1894 fps/1791 ft-lbs

700 = 1753 fps/1536 ft-lbs/ 42.2 TE (Adequate for a mature bull elk hit through heart-lungs, assuming bullet expansion.)*

• This was a definite surprise to me. From one poster on 24 hr campfire, I had read this, though at a slower MV and much higher elevation than I’m using, claiming .460 – .470 BC and expansion at a much lower impact velocity than claimed by Nosler. He had killed mature elk at this range using his .35 Whelen AI loaded with the 225gr AccuBond. Of course, he was using a “tricked-out” scope. Today’s bullets, along with some new powders, have changed the game!

The .338 Winchester Magnum – same conditions as for the .35 Whelen.

Bullet: 225gr AccuBond

SD = .281

BC = .550

MV = 2832 fps/4006 ft-lbs

100 = 2673 fps/3568 ft-lbs

200 = 2519 fps/3170 ft-lbs

300 = 2370 fps/2807 ft-lbs

400 = 2227 fps/2477 ft-lbs

500 = 2088 fps/2178 ft-lbs

600 = 1955 fps/1908 ft-lbs:

700 = 1827 fps/1667 ft-lbs

So the .338 Win Mag is the winner of this particular contest, but not by much, and the good news is: There are NO losers!

RECOIL: My .35 Whelen from the 70gr load = 34 ft-lbs with the brake on my 7.5 lb rifle single-shot (w. scope and 1 cartridge loaded).

RECOIL: The .338 Win Mag from 71.5 (as per Nosler) = 38 ft-lbs in an 8.25 lb rifle with scope and ammo.

Overall length of rifles:

39″ for the Traditions single-shot with a 22″ barrel and brake.

42″ for a 22″ barreled .338 Win Mag.

*There are a variety of bullet weights for each: 180gr to 310gr in .358″

-and 160gr to 300gr in .338″

CONCLUSION: It’s a toss up, what one can do, so can the other.

Nit Picking: one might argue that the .338 WM has more component bullets with slightly better SDs and BCs.

-and one could counter with the indisputable fact that the .35 Whelen is more efficient due to its slightly larger bore, therefore a lighter rifle with less recoil can be used (depending on which powders for each).

For most, looking for a new medium bore rifle, choosing between those two would likely come down to which feels more comfortable to carry and shoot. But the unlikelihood of being able to do that, a choice could still be made depending on whether the hunter is a handloader or not, as well as other factors of perceived availability of rifles, ammo and components for handloads.

If you are one of the “lucky ones” and have both… ENJOY THEM!

Looking for some elk to shoot at less than 700 yards? This is less than 5 km from our range!

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Practical Modern Hunting Cartridges, Greater than .30-caliber, using the best in Components for Medium to Large and Dangerous Game – P2

So far, I’ve covered several hunting cartridges from 8 mm to the .375 H&H in P1, but not the .375 Ruger which is coming up next:

.375 RUGER: Ballistics are claimed to be basically the same as a .375 H&H, but from a 20″ barrel rather than a 24″. That means a cartridge that holds more powder. But also its claim to fame is not just a bigger case but a shorter one that will fit into a “standard-length” action, like that of a .30-06. So, it’s not just a bigger cartridge, but shorter and fatter. The idea by Ruger was to have the ballistics of an H&H in a shorter and handier package – and all evidence suggests that they were successful.

So whatever the H&H will do, so will the Ruger in a much more compact design. And that’s not simply by introducing nouveau engineering! It’s been done before, only on a less grandiose scale! Introducing a short cartridge for a shot action and short barrel was the scheme of Remington in their Rem M600, chambered for the .350 Remington Magnum that was, more or less, the equal of a .35 Whelen with a 24″ barrel screwed into a standard-length action (.30-06 length). The plan was a powerful .35-caliber in a relatively light and compact package.

But the African version of the .375 Ruger has a 23″ barrel, with a claimed 2660 fps from a 300gr, whereas their Alaska version has a 20″, reducing velocities of their respective bullet weights more in line with the H&H… or so it’s claimed, but handloading manuals seem to raise a few questions about that! This rifle is a Savage chambered in .375 Ruger. I handled one identical at my favorite emporium. The price was right, but it was quite heavy and has a 23″ barrel plus the brake. But the store had neither factory ammo nor brass for handloads, so I passed. In comparing it with my Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62, I knew handloaded ballistics would be similar so it would add nothing in that department, and weighing 2 lbs more, it would be less handy in tight quarters.

For example: Handloading manuals are very inconsitent as to barrel lengths for the Ruger .375: Nosler used a 26″! NONE make a 26″ barrel for the Ruger .375, the only possible exception being a special order from a custom gun shop – and why would that be done? The whole idea behind the RUGER .375 is SHORT, Powerful and HANDY! So it appears that NOSLER had a strange motive to make it appear that their 300gr Partition was faster from the Ruger than an H&H… That makes nonsence to me! Since they are showing 2715 fps from their 300gr in a 26″ Pac Nor barrel with a 112% compressed charge of IMR4350… what WAS the point? I’ve gotten that from a 26″ H&H!

Therefore, we have to extrapolate for a 23″ at best, or a 20″: So it looks like a severely compressed load of IMR4350 would result in factory claims for a 23″ African Hawkeye, or possibly 2600 fps from the 20″ Alaskan…. keeping in mind a 300gr.

Again: Barnes #4 used a 24″ test barrel for the Ruger .375. A 24″ isn’t in production by Ruger, so we must ask why Barnes used a 24″? For their 300gr TSX FB, MV is 2642 fps, not the 2660 fps claimed by Ruger for a 23″. From the 20″ Alaskan, how much loss from Barnes’ claim? It’s a guess, but I’d say at LEAST 20 fps per inch = 80 fps = 2642 – 80= 2562 fps for the 300gr TSX. (BTW, my 26″ Browning in .375 H&H lost 140 fps when chopped from 26″ to 22″ = 35 fps per inch!).

But HORNADY comes to our rescue… they tested the Ruger .375 in a 20″ RUGER Model 77 Hawkeye, and the best from their 300gr (4 versions) is 2550 fps from ONE LOAD ONLY!

Eight (8) others gave 2500 fps as max, and six others gave 2400 fps as MAX!

AND, by the way, from my reading, Alaskans tend to use the 270gr TSX for big and dangerous beasts, at around 2600 to 2700 fps from their Alaskan Hawkeyes (20″).

Reality begins to set in! Hornady shows 2700 fps from their 270gr from one powder (two that are the same- H414 and W760), five powders gave 2650 max, and eight shows 2600 max.

Other than the potential handiness of the RUGER .375, for those who hunt the Alaskan bush, I fail to see any advantage in ballistics over the renowned .375 H&H. And the H&H has advantages in availability of factory ammo in out-of-the-way places that RUGER hasn’t yet made available.

The .375 WEATHERBY: This, of course, is simply a .375 H&H Improved with straight walls and radius shoulders. It holds a bit more than 100 grains of H2O, whereas the standard H&H holds ~94 grains, depending on manufacturer. I will say that Remington .375 H&H brass proved exceedingly tough when fireformed in my .340 WBY chamber. And I nearly had my Browning A-Bolt .375 H&H rechambered to .375 WBY, except for the barrel’s bore that was off-center prohibiting good accuracy. The .375 H&H cases improved in a .375 WBY chamber will last much longer due to less stretching.

<That’s the 4″ muzzle end piece of the .375 H&H’s 26″ barrel that I had my gunsmith cut off to improve it’s accuracy. Only then was it determined that the bore was 0.008″ off-center.

Ballistics are improved from standard 2530 fps to 2700 fps in factory ammo from Weatherby, and upwards to 2800 fps in good handloads from a 26″ tube. Of course, best handloads from the H&H with a good 26″ barrel can also make ~2700 fps. So, the overall improvement is about 100 fps in handloads and 170 fps in factory products – and that apart from better brass life in handloads, especially if fireforming Remington cases. Weatherby cases tend to be thinner. There are several medium-slow to slow powders that will work well in any improved version of the .375 H&H, such as the various 4350s and RL-17.

Since the .375 Weatherby verges on impracticality for the average hunter, it snuck into this list due to the fact that a rechambering job is easily done by any competent gunsmith, and fireforming .375 H&H cartridges to .375 WBY is also as simple as firing H&H ammo in a .375 WBY chamber.

Any of the Super .375 magnums are not practical for average hunting by the average hunter, so are not included in this dissertation…. the .375 RUM and .378 WBY in particular.

In order for a rifle’s ballistics of over .30-cal to be practical for medium to large and dangerous game, I’d certainly think – after a lot of evaluation – that a minimum limit of 300 yards must be possible in a practical sense. So that poses a serious problem for certain cartridges that might otherwise be considered in particular rifles. For instance: a Marlin in .444 Rem, or a .405 Winchester in a lever action rifle, but in a Ruger #1 it might qualify, same with the .45-70, and so on. But, as many of you know, I had a long throat given to my Ruger #1 in .45-70, making it very capable at 500 yards for large game. But those are not available today as off-the-shelf Ruger rifles – unless you already have one. But several other models of single-shots are around, and the 1895 Marlin with barrels of 22″ and 26″ are able contenders with their best handloads.

Once we get into calibers over .375″, long-range shooting of large and potentially dangerous game imposes ballistic requirements that can only be fulfilled by certain heavy-hitting cartridges if the minimum limit is 300 yards! There’s no way around that! So the obvious starting choice is a .416-caliber rifle: The .416 Remingtom or .416 Ruger. The Rigby may be far too heavy for the tight bushes of Alaska if my reading hasn’t led me astray. The .416 Taylor is in that mix but not readily available as a commercial creation.

The .416 REMINGTON MAGNUM: if you have one. The 350gr TTSX with a .289 SD and .444 BC is the best choice for soft-skinned game to 400 yards. Starting at 2600 fps, it still has 3303 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at 300 yards. Zeroed at 250 yards it is only – 5″ at 300 and – 46″ at 500 with a retained energy of over 2360 ft-lbs. TE at 300 = 103.

MV = 2600 fps/5253ft-lbs/ Zero at 250 yards

100 = 2413 fps/4523 ft-lbs/ +3.67″

200 = 2233 fps/3876 ft-lbs/ +2.93″

300 = 2062 fps/3303 ft-lbs/ -4.79″/ 103 TE

400 = 1898 fps/2799 ft-lbs/ -20.7″

500 = 1743 fps/2361 ft-lbs/ -46.3″

More or less, the other .416s would be similar except the Weatherby which is much more in everything, especially recoil.

The .45-70: In a strong single-shot in particular, it shouldn’t be discounted. This New England Firearms was loaded with a 465gr hardcast which left the muzzle at 1900 fps. Range to bear was 70 yards. One shot flattened it on the spot. But don’t discount such a load for long-range shooting of large and dangerous game. With a .310 BC, it would still be making 1311 fps at 300 yards with a TE of 108.7 (Compare THAT with the .416 Rem at 300 yards!); enough for a 2000 lb soft-skinned animal with a hit through the lungs.

That load was shooting MOA. From my 1895 Marlin it was going +1900 fps but showing a bit more stress than in the NEF which allowed a longer COL.

The .458 WINCHESTER MAGNUM: This is the all-around best of the .458-calibers, and it has been and is being used on ALL medium to large and dangerous game. Nothing else in this caliber has its historical record of taking all game in these classes. The best currently available bullet for those tasks in soft-shinned animals is the 404gr Hammer bullet. With an SD of .275 and BC of .419, at 2550 fps it out-performs it’s nearest competitors, including the 350gr TTSX/.416 from Remington et al, all the way to 500 yards in energy, and a TE of 120 at 300 yards.

MV = 2550 fps/5832 ft-lbs/ zero at 250 yards

100 = 2354 fps/4970 ft-lbs/ +3.91″

200 = 2167 fps/4211 ft-lbs/ +3.12″

300 = 1988 fps/3546 ft-lbs/ -5.10″/ 120 TE

400 = 1819 fps/2968 ft-lbs/ -22.1″

500 = 1660 fps/2473 ft-lbs/ -49.7″

From 8mm magnums to the top dog in .458 Win Mag, this is a list of practical cartridges for medium to large and dangerous soft-skinned game on this planet at a minimum range of 300 yards. And only a handful of those qualify for the pachyderms. Another small group is borderline, some of which are excellent timber and brush cartridges, but fall short on extended ranges of 300 yards and beyond.

Till the next – the .35 Whelen and .338 Winchester Magnum compared.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Practical Modern Hunting Cartridges, Greater than .30-Caliber using the Best in Components for Medium to Large & Dangerous Game – P1

While hunting rifles and their cartridges will surely be used to punch holes in targets for sighting-in and practice, the emphasis of these articles will be their use in hunting.

There’s no doubt that much more shooting of loads intended for hunting takes place in shooting holes in targets at ranges than in the actual shooting of game.

“Practical”, “Modern”, “Hunting Cartridges”, “Greater than .30-Caliber”, and using the best bullets and powders will be both the aim and scope of the following presentations as they relate to medium to large and dangerous game.

My Ruger No.1H in .458 Winchester Magnum at work at a bear-bait setup in October/2022. The load was Hornady 250gr MonoFlexs at ~2680 fps. In kinetic energy, similar to a 250gr factory load from a .338 Win Mag – its direct descendant – but at only 67% of the .458’s full power!

PRACTICAL implies at least the following: readily available and suitable for handloads from modest to full power.

MODERN suggests cartridges that intentionaly use smokeless powders, or are so loaded by factories despite their origins from the BP era, such as a .45-70.

HUNTING CARTRIDGES. Very few smokeless powder military cartridges over .308″ have become successful hunting cartridges as loaded by factories for large game. Certainly the British .303 (.312″) has taken a fair share of larger game, but it’s not perceived, or recommended, with it’s current factory loads “made in America”, for “the Great Bears” or other game of their ilk. But, certainly capable within safe ranges employing a well constructed handload of a 215gr at ~2250 fps, if they could be found.

Still, I’m thinking of cartridges that start at 8mm (.323) and have practical factory loads readily available for modern-built rifles. Unfortunately, that excludes the excellent 8mm Mauser, even though Euro-factory hunting ammo is far superior to American made 8mm Mauser ammo.

So we’re gonna start with the two American magnums in .323-caliber, the so-called .325 WSM and 8mm Rem Mag. But the main problems with the 8 Rem Mag is the absence of factory ammo and rifles. So, it’s not really “practical” for the average hunter after larger game at longer distances. The .338 Win Mag is much more practical in those regards, so we’ll focus on that one after the .325 WSM – which is also borderline as to factory ammo. Brass from a .300 WSM can be necked-up to .323″.

The .325 WSM (Winchester Short Magnum) was conceived by Winchester’s “brass” in 2004 to compete with their own .338 Win Mag (1958) in a short-action Winchester rifle with a 23″ barrel. It fell short on wishes and has never attained the status hoped for.

First: it’s not a “.325″ but a .323-cal, and secondly, it can’t compete with the standard-action M70 in .338-cal because it’s not a .338-cal, limiting it to lesser weight bullets with poorer SDs and BCs. The standard factory product is a 200gr at a claimed 2850 fps, which is less than the same weight from their .300 Win Mag with good handloads. And a 200gr from a 24” .338 Win Mag can attain 3000 fps using the right formula in handloads.

So while, from it’s best handloads, it could perform well enough to meet the expectations of some users (less weight and recoil), yet it falls behind the cartridge it was deemed to immitate in ballistics. So we’ll give it a nod and endorse it for those with more modest expectations. There are three hunting bullets for handloads from Nosler: a 180gr SB, and two 200 grainers – a Partition and the AccuBond – both excellent. Sectional densities are similar to the 180s in .30-caliber, while their BCs are average at .426 for the Partition and .450 for the AB. Nosler shows a high of 2964 fps for those two, but not from a Winchester 23″ production rifle, but a 26″ Wiseman test barrel. So as a practical best result, I’ll assign 2900 fps for those two. Not too bad, but still short of 3000 fps from a 24″ .338 Win Mag. 3056 fps is assigned to those bullets from a 24″ Wiseman test barrel in 8mm Rem Mag. Of course a few other bullet manufacturers produce 8mm projectiles as well, but the main flaw of 8mm cartridges for larger game at longer ranges is the absence of a “sleek” 250gr, especially for the 8 Rem Mag.

Yet the best “compromise” appears to be the 220gr from Sierra. It was made for the 8mm Magnums, and in particular the 8 Rem Mag. From the .325 WSM is should make ~2800 fps MV from best handloads giving over 2600 ft-lbs at 300 yards, and a TE of 60 – 65 depending on fudge factors – enough for the largest moose but borderline for a 2000 lb Eland at 300. Much better results would be expected from the 8 Rem Mag at ~ +3000 fps MV and ~2500 fps at 300 yards = 3054 ft-lbs/ 70-75 TE. In contrast, my 9.3 x 62 gives 70 TE at 500 yards!

And in all of this, we’re talking about a SINGLE SHOT to the “boiler room”… Agreed, more often than not, a couple or three are required to finish matters!

The .338 Winchester Magnum has enjoyed remarkable success and is still one of the most popular for medium to large and dangerous game, including the Brown Bears of Alaska (which was intended). With component bullets from 160gr to 300gr, and most of the premium type, and with good accuracy and velocity, it’s a very capable and versatile cartridge in a complementary rifle. Just about every rifle manufacturer chambers for it, plus a plethora of private rifle builders and smiths. It’s a TOP choice for any game worldwide where legal. And word has it that it has largely replaced the ol’ .30-06 in the hands of Alaskan guides. And a big plus is one can find ammo for it anywhere ammo is sold in Alaska and most other parts of the world to boot! It’s that much in demand. If I could live with one rifle for all big game, a .338 Winchester Magnum would be on a short list. 2800 fps is possible from today’s powders firing a premium 250gr from a 24″ barrel. Then, of course, heavier premiums are available, but I doubt their usefulness over something like the 250gr AccuBond with a .575 BC. There is also a LR 265gr AB with a .735 BC from Nosler.

The .340 WBY et al: From my former .340 Wby at ~2850 fps from that 265gr AB, I doubt that a bull elk could stop that one at 1000 yards! At that range it would still be making 1806 fps/1920 ft-lbs – plenty for ANY elk and most moose from a descent hit… of course, that’s the rub! The TE is 63.74 by the way, with conditions at +2000 ft, 58* and 58 RH. Giving the hunter credit for an average body hit, we multiply 63.74 x 15 = 956 lbs live weight. A more precise body hit (heart-lungs), I’d multiply 63.74 x 18 = 1147 lbs, a perfect hit (by accident) to CNS, multiply by 25 = 1593 lbs, and so on. Take all that with a grain of salt if you wish, but for me it serves as a potential guide – telling me that nothing more is needed for 99% of any game hunting, anywhere in the world, including for those who attempt such shots in the foothills of the Rocky Mountain States or Provinces. That’s giving academic credit to the Super Magnums in .338-caliber.

The .35 WHELEN: This is an oldie that dates to 1920, or thereabouts, and Col. Townsend Whelen is given credit for it along with his gunsmith, James Howe. Simply: It was the military .30-06 Springfield necked-up to .358-caliber with no other changes. That permitted heavier bullets to 310grs to be used, yet the “standard load” of a 250gr at 2500 fps/3470 ft-lbs was considered the best “all-around” load for most purposes. Not a lot has changed since those days.

Handloaders kept it alive until it was legitimized at SAAMI by Remington in 1986. CUP was set at 52,000, and Remington’s factory loads were a 200gr SP at a promoted 2675 fps/3178 ft-lbs, and a 250gr RN at 2400 fps/3198 ft-lbs. However, having neither dies not brass, I purchased a box of the 250gr SP (due to complaints, Remington eventually produced the 250gr with an SP profile). Chronographed data from ten of twenty fired (for brass to reload) averaged 2247 fps.

I purchased my 3rd .35 Whelen in late March of this year (2022), and have written quite a bit about the progressive experience of developing handloads for/in it. So will not rehearse all that! But, there are new bullets, powders, experiences and knowledge regarding its updated ballistics. In part (NOT wholly) that’s due to new loads in SPEER’s Manual #14, and a fresh understanding of what 52,000 CUP looks like in PSI. The “old” thinking, seemingly promoted by Remington, reloading manuals and “gun writers”, was that CUP and PSI were the same! Identical! It turns out that 52,000 CUP is… wait for it! 62,000 PSI!

Now, some of “us” were very disobedient to those “promotions” by Remington, the “manuals” and the “press”! And, we knew it! You see, knowing there was “fake news” about all this, we went by PRESSURE SIGNS! But we found out on our own that Whelen’s original 2500 fps from 250s was plenty safe… and with better powders, 2600 fps was SAFE! And we were bad boys… reading the SIGNS! BUT! Once SPEER pushed the limit to a new level with newer powders, some of “us” have accepted the challenge of 2700 fps from 250s!!!!!

I haven’t tried that yet, but I’m at 2850 fps/4059 ft-lbs from the 225gr AccuBond, and I know I could safely go another grain of CFE 223 to nearly 2900 fps from the 225gr. So, it’s a new age… and time. But some are still stuck in the dark ages, refusing to admit there are brighter lights shining!

April 27/22 – This was recorded from a 225gr AccuBond fired from my Traditions OUTFITTER G3 in .35 Whelen. Chrony was at 15 ft from muzzle. 67 grains of CFE 223, Rem brass, WLRM primer, and 3.45″ COL. My hunting load is now 69 grains of CFE 223, all else the same = 2850 fps/4059 ft-lbs (corrected to MV) from a 22″ barrel. It shoots into sub-MOA.

Think about that! The .35 Whelen is now producing ballistics that was ascribed to the .338 Win Mag not so long ago… but it too has moved on!

Sometime soon, I’ll be writing a comparison of those two. And recently I made mention that a “modern” .35 Whelen (“modern” in the sense of “updated”) is comparable to the “new” .338 RPM by Weatherby… for elk to 700 yards, using less powder and recoil!

The .358 Winchester: This is one that I often coveted, but for one reason or another it never happened. It was especially attractive, in my view, in a Browing Lever Action (BLR). What the 225 AccuBond from my Whelen can do at 350 yards, the .358 Win can do at 200 yards from a 23″ barrel. That’s inferred from Nosler’s manual #6 at 2528 fps MV, using 49.5 grains of IMR 4895. That also means a recoil of around 25 ft-lbs from a 7 3/4lb rifle. Add a brake and that should reduce that number to about 20 ft-lbs. As a big timber and brush gun, it would be hard to beat for elk, moose and bear. And, of course… bambi.

The downside for a .358 Winchester is availability. Even a used one might be difficult to find. But for those who already have one, they need no recommendations from me! It has also been chambered in the coveted Savage 99.

Since a significant part of our qualifications reads “readily available and suitable”, the .358 Winchester is borderline to say the best about it!

As to any others in this class, such as the .348 Winchester and .356 Winchester, they are destined to shoot FT bullets which limits effective range, but are certainly useful for game up to moose at brush and timber ranges when loaded with the 220gr Speer at ~2400 fps or speciality bullets of 250 grains at around 2200 fps. But for the grizzly and Brown bears at close range, I’d opt for one of the others on our list. But in this essay, the emphasis is on practical and common cartridges over .30-cal that can do it all. And that severely limits choices. Both the .348 and .356 Winchesters verge on obsolescence, as do some more modern cartridges introduced in recent times, such as the . 376 Steyr and .330 Dakota, unless you already have the rifle and have stock-piled components for reloads. and/or commercial ammo.

The 9.3 x 62: On May 31, 2011, I came home with my first (and only) rifle so chambered. And I’ve never felt the need to own another. I’ve owned several in .338 caliber and in .358, but never more than one in .366 caliber (9.3). And it will stay that way. I’ll not repeat all the reasons why, but it’s one of very few that not only has met, but exceeded all expectations in accuracy, ballistics, handling, strength, functioning and reliability.

Most – not all – of the rifles I’ve bought new, regardless of brand, had to have some work done on them by my gunsmith, or myself, to function properly. Not this Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62. The only work done on it (other than normal cleaning) was adding a brake last winter because of my age and arthritic condition.

<Their speed

< And accuracy at 100 yards – 0.44″ – three 250gr ABs.

It has replaced all my mediums (except for the new .35 Whelen last spring), including .338s and .375s. The only fault with it is that I can’t find any! Well, maybe one: The need for lighter quality bullets, and that’s where another .35 Whelen has entered the picture – the production of excellent quality, lighter weight USA built projectiles in 180s, 200s and 225s. I also have some heavier in .358″, but they will likely never be used as that’s covered by a 250gr AccuBond from Nosler in 9.3, as well as 286s from Nosler and Hornady, and the 320gr from Woodleigh. Then, the 9.3 x 62 can push them all faster, and probably more accurately, than the Whelen. Another reason I like it: It’s not fussy! I “hate” fussy people and things! You never know what there’re gonna fuss over next!

The .375 H&H Magnum: It has been said (and written) more than a few times that “the choice of a .30-06 is never a mistake”… and that in turn has often been applied to the highly regarded .375 H&H. Myself? I might take umbrage from that. But I do, nonetheless, listen with respect to some of the opinions of others whom I regard as being honest and not just political in the use of such expressions.

I’ve owned a few, but have never had to face a lion, leopard, hippo, buffalo or elephant… so what do I know? Be that as it may, I have taken an M70 for bear and moose – but never for bambi. I felt confident in its use for those species in their environments, loaded with 300gr Sierras on one trip for moose and 300gr Hornadys for bear on another, at around 2570 fps for each. But the opportunity escaped me for pulling the trigger on either. But as a side note, my outfitter and guide for bear informed me that since my bait location was on private land, I couldn’t stay past Friday as the weekend was scheduled for other activities. The American hunter who followed on Sunday took over my spot and shot a +500 lb bear the next day! Perfect for a .375 H&H, don’t ya think?

Some argue that the .375 H&H is “too much gun” for N.A. game, yet it’s commonly used on African Plains Game that includes the likes of warthogs and various antelope, so why not for feral hogs, elk, moose and bear? And some of the exotics in Texas…

More comin’….

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Staying FIT

I’ve no technical training in the matter of resolving some muscular and joint issues, though I’ve suffered from each over the past three decades or so. But I have received help from professionals. Added to that is the more serious issue of being a diabetic that nearly ended my life a few years ago through complications involving plaque buildup in some major arteries. That was cared for by one of the world’s best who implanted five stents. And, of course, I’m on dietary changes and pills for all sorts of issues as the body insists on slowing down with ageing.

All of that in an uncomplaining mood… I want to add that the most important physical aspect of maintaining and restoring a healthy life style, in spite of and in addition to professional help, has been a life full of physical activity to this day.< Wolf hunting in February

I’ve always loved the outdoors and had an adventurous spirit. Since we lived on an island at the mouth of The Bay of Fundy, (and on the border of Maine) our house was perched at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. There were ten acres on a rocky shore line where the drop-off from the property behind our house was about forty feet straight down to the rocks below. That was a concern to my mother, so she kept me “locked up” on the full-length veranda to the west side of the house (away from the rocky ledge). I hated that, especially since my two older brothers could roam freely wherever they wanted! When I was finally “let loose” from those confines – I fully explored those ten acres, plus whatever “acres” dad’s cousins owned on the other side of the municipal dirt road.

Like my father, who passed on the genetics that included arthritic “material” that he got from his mother, and was an inveterate researcher, I too discovered through research that my dibilitating arthritic attacks were caused by a malfunction of the autoimmune system (that can cause a lot of other serious medical problems as well). I’m treated for that by a lady specialist (who is also a university professor). And my diabetes was passed on from my grandfather via my mother who didn’t get it!

So, many of our physical problems have been inherited, not caused by ageing or accident – though often worsening as life passes.

In the meantime we can, and must, do our part in maintaining and enhancing our physical (and mental) wellbeing through physical and other activities. Several years ago my wife had a knee replacement. Immediately after, she had to endure physical therapy that was VERY painful! She was sixty at the time, today she’s eighty-six and that knee works as well as it did twenty-six years ago… but now it’s her other knee that needs help! Being a retired nurse, she tells me that those who didn’t do the therapy have had serious problems since!

The point? Doctors, specialists, professionals and pills can only do so much, the rest depends on our self-discipline that includes keeping fit physically! How do we do that? As hunters and sportsmen we should already know! BUT, as we age and have some health problems (real or imagined), the TENDENCY is to say home, go online and/or watch TV for hours on end!! And, for a bit of change, jump in the car or truck/SUV, etc for shopping and “eatin’ out”! And that becomes the extent of “working out”!

< Checking a bear bait site in October. I was in my seventies and the rifle was my 1895 Marlin in .45-70, loaded with handloads.

My wife and I “eat out” quite a bit because: 1) It’s not fair to her at this stage of life to have to prepare a “full” meal for dinner each day, 2) I can cook a basic meal, but I’m no gormet chef by any stretch, and 3) It gets us out of the house for a few hours and we experience new venues. Beside all that, she likes gardening (even with a crippled knee) and I like hunting. Yet, I work out with weights nearly every day and do as much extra walking as my conscience tells me: “Bob, it’s good medicine for what ailes you!”.

Woods walking has been the most profitable for maintaining balance, strengthening leg muscles, tendons, knees, ankles and toes. “Woods walking” is where I hunt, which is a huge area with some trails, but mostly “through the woods” as in stepping over deadfalls, roots, fallen branches, rocks and boulders, climbing up or down ridges and crossing streams. In addition, the rifle is often switched from hand to hand and maneuvered to miss branches and rocky embankments, etc. As well, the upper body is constantly working to miss overhead branches, stooping low, then standing straight again. In effect the whole intricate body mass of flesh and bone, and the various systems that give life and maintain it, is involved in such activities. At the end, I feel alive though physically tired, and in consequence, I sleep well and eat well.

Such “working out” positively affects all bodily systems, so they function better and in harmony: Cardio-vascular, respitory, immune, disgestive, hormonal, etc. And the brain functions are positively impacted.

<Keeping hungry bears fed is a great system for keeping one fit!

And confidence is restored – we feel better about ourselves, so we stay involved with the people that matter to us, and our interests. Staying involved often leads to ventures unforseen at the debut of hunting activities. In my case (as well for many others) it has led to the handloading of many hunting rifles, along with the motive to explore and understand rifle ballistics – their “whys”, “hows” and “wherefores”. As that was happening, along with it came the desire to share with others what I was learning or had already learned – the desire to communicate with others of the same interests. That led to producing a few handloading manuals, and the next step was in writing blogs about all this stuff.

For some, increased knowledge and experience has resulted in a related business enterprise: Joyce Hornady making his own bullets that has resulted in perhaps the largest and most significant empire in all things handloading and development of new cartridges – and restoration of some ancient and near obsolete ones.

Of course, Hornady is not the only. Names like Nosler, Barnes and Hodgdon are just at the tip of a mountain of great entrepreneurs who ventured as young, eager men who were hunters.

Staying well in mind and body is mostly a matter of attitude or “spirit”. I officially retired as “Pastor” at age 84. That exempts me from a lot of responsibilities, but in “spirit”, I’ll always be a pastor, and I’m still “Pastor”to some with whom I regularly visit, or chat with via the Internet, cell phone, or meet with over coffee. I’m glad I can still do that, and they seem appreciative.

I really wouldn’t want to be writing these blogs if I thought they were meaningless drivel. At the very least they may provide a distraction for some from the more pressing issues of life… and just maybe some education and entertainment! The foremost beneficiary of staying fit from “working out” is obviously self. We feel better about ourselves and a positive attitude is gained or maintained that undoubtedly influences those close to us, and still others with whom we maintain a relationship.

< This man was a British intellectual with emotional and physical problems: Serious depression and serious diabetes, along with that he was seriously overweight. About a decade ago I conducted his funeral. He died of complications related to those issues, a year younger than I. However, we became decent friends and he wanted to hunt bear with me. That gave him something else to think about and do rather than endlessly denigrating himself that caused him to make a couple of attempts on his own life. To help “lift up” someone with self-destructive tendencies, we must be relatively free from “baggage” ourselves. A major part of that freedom comes from right thinking and living!

On the other hand, we may be fit physically, but sick in mind and spirit if our daily diet is the endless corruption of the world spued daily from media sources of entertainment and “news”. Immoral and aberrant thinking and resultant behaviour is endorsed and promoted in all aspects of society: All levels of education, politics and media – with its focus on lust, greed, anger, destructive self-centered living, and predictions of no hope for the future.

Yet, an ancient word from the Bible is still apropos and post modern: “Rejoice in the Lord (Jesus Christ) always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

“Finally brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.” — Philippians 4: 4 – 8 (NIV).

That was from Paul, an apostle, to the church at Philippi, in today’ Greece, in an epistle (letter) sent from a Roman prison, where he was locked up because of preaching the “good news” (gospel) about Jesus – who was raised from the dead by God the Father, and confirmed to be The ONE spoken of by the ancient prophets and his apostles who were witnesses of his resurrection. Yet, the GOOD NEWS is: He’s alive and coming again for all those who have believed in him according to the truth – not the lies and myths of the world that hates him, AND STILL DOES! They have substituted a lie for the TRUTH in making Jesus look like a toothless pet and declawed lion, so anyone and everyone can feel “comfortable” with that pet-form of Christianity – in which the CHRIST has been X-cluded! (The Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 15 – 18)

In the pic below there is a bullet, a 400gr Hawk bullet in .458″. Is that all we see? Oh yes, it has a cannelure. Those were ordered for me by the late John Williams, proprietor of Williams Arms in Port Perry, Ontario, around 1995, and I still have 20, including the one with the cannelure (that I gave it from a Lee Crimp Die). John and I did a lot of business over the years, but he is no longer with us having died of cancer a couple of years ago – and he was quite a bit younger than I. The shop is still in operation, though John had moved it to a larger facility due to making more clients and friends over the years. Today it’s owned by his widowed wife, and operated by a competent staff. My latest trip there was for CFE 223, that had been ordered for me about three months ago, and arrived two weeks ago – I picked up two 1 lb cans.

But to the purpose of the pic… the 400 Hawk rests on one of my Bibles. You’ll have noticed it’s well worn though only twenty years old. There’s a simple reason for that: The heavenly Father talks to me through the Bible. God’s TRUTH is the foundation of everything that exists -including that 400gr bullet and my life! Even the Hawk company acknowledges that! How do I know? From the ancient symbol of a fish imprinted in two places on the box! That was the symbol that the early Christians used to identify one another when under the threat of death by Rome. Today, you might find it on automobile license plates and other products, stating that the company or product acknowledges Christ as Saviour and Lord, and the Bible as God’s TRUTH. Many products that we use as handloaders and amateur gunsmiths have come to us in Jesus name from places like Hawk, Timney and Hodgdon!

There are those among us who acknowledge God’s Truth: Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (The Gospel of John, ch 14 and verse 6). Because He IS alive, He’s the eternal source of our healing for body, mind and spirit. (The prophecies of ISAIAH chapters 2, 40 and 53. Recommended reading in the NIV or NKJ versions.)

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Surprised or Unimpressed by Handloads? – P2

In P1, I discussed how impressed I was (and unimpressed by book results) with a handful of rifles during the time of ownership – which in a few was relatively short-term.

Continuing with that theme in the following, the rifles and cartridges that have greatly pleased and satisfied beyond nominal expectations was a Browning A-Bolt SS LH in .300 Win Mag 26″, the 9.3 x 62 in a Tikka T3 Lite, another .35 Whelen single-shot, two .45-70s in particular, and the last .458 Win Mag.

In that order:

The Browning A-Bolt (LH) SS in .300 Win Mag with a 26″ barrel: It’s accuracy was superb with almost any load, and “fast” is perhaps the best word for it’s external ballistics. Though many other suitable gun powders were tried, RL-22 was by far the preferred fuel. Briefly stated, without too many details: ~3200 fps from 180s and ~3000 fps from 200s. Accuracy couldn’t have been better. I’ve never understood the need to use 150s and 165s in .300 magnums. They were intended for heavier game at optimum speeds and extended ranges.

< These were identical loads from a 180gr/.308-cal fired over three Tuesdays from the Browning A-Bolt in .300 Win Mag. The distance was 100 yards at our range. The first shot on week 1 hit the point of the diamond. The 2nd week’s shot hit 1/2″ above that. And the 3rd week’s shot impacted the hole of the first week. No changes were made to the load and no adjustments to the scope.

The 9.3 x 62 in a Tikka T3 Lite

I’ve written much about this rifle in various past articles so will keep that part brief: The action is likely the smoothest I’ve ever used in a bolt type, and with a 70 degree lift it’s one of the fastest. Overall, the balance, weight and handling is perfection, and its accuracy for a BG rifle in using handloads is superb. Since I began using RL-17 within its first year, ballistics have surpassed anything in factory products and publications, equalling the larger cased 9.3 x 64 in claimed production ammo. In actual fact, it quite easily equals or surpasses claimed .375 H&H factory products even with its 1.56″ shorter barrel. According to QuickLoad, my loads for the 9.3 x 62 firing the 286 Partition at +2600 fps and the 320gr Woodleigh at +2400 fps fall short of 64,000 PSI using RL-17. And, QL projects 2558 fps for the 300gr Swift AF from my COL of 3.37″ at the same max pressures. Once again: I use 64,000 psi as max because Tikka makes a T3 chambered for the .338 Win Mag, identical to mine except for a slightly longer barrel. RL – 17 is also the preferred powder for the 250gr AB at +2700 fps. The 232 Oryx has never been loaded to max psi, but around 2450 fps it’s very accurate using RL-15.

Soon, I’ll be trying a new-to-me powder, the same as used in my .35 Whelen – CFE 223, which has given excellent results in the .35 Whelen. So it also should perform very well in the 9.3 x 62. Being a ball powder, it will not likely be a compressed load but perform similarly to RL-17. In the .35 Whelen 67 grains of RL-17 and 68 grains of CFE 223 gave similar results firing the 225gr AccuBonds, but CFE 223 occupied less space in the case and showed less peak pressure by case head expansion.

All of the above makes the 9.3 x 62 a world-class rifle for any game, including elephant, where legal using solids.

< Wanting to display the ammo on the left side of the stock, the bolt handle is hidden on the right side of the RH action. I shoot from my left side.

The .35 Whelen in a TRADITIONS OUTFITTER G3 single-shot: This also has enjoyed a lot of attention over the past seven months. It’s my third .35 Whelen and the second in a single-shot (the other being a New England Firearms). So far, I’ve mainly focused on developing a good accurate load for a premium 225gr. And that has resulted from a new propellant and bullet, namely the 225gr AccuBond by Nosler and CFE 223 by Hodgdon. The components are: New Renington brass, WLRM primers, 69 grains of CFE 223, and a COL of 3.45″. They shoot into sub-MOA at an average MV of 2850 fps/4059 ft-lbs. That’s plenty as an all-around load for my hunting of any size game in this area on license.

The plan was to have a “knock-about, walk-about rifle” with little concerns over weather, rough terrain, falls, dirt, snow or rain. Something powerful enough for moose at any range to a grumpy black bear in your face! Then… also flat-shooting enough to reach that wolf on the far side of yonder – and do it all without wearing you out with its weight or unhandiness. So far it’s done all that in hunting bear over bait… rifle in one hand and a bait bucket in the other! And over a full box of those AccuBonds have sped out the muzzle with its brake to verify MV, accuracy and POI. Other than that, it gets wiped down, zipped into its case, tossed into the back of the SUV and stowed in its hideaway. No fuss, no bother and always ready and willing for its next jaunt.

< At 100 yards< At work

A special Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT: This was the object of much print for nearly two decades. There was a predecessor, my first .45-70 in a Ruger No.1, for which I’d drempt and waited for several years. That one wasn’t new but still in excellent condition. A new-like M77 Ruger bolt-action in .458 Win Mag was a stand-in for over a year while I waited for a Ruger No.1 in .45-70 to show up in the used gun rack of a dealership I frequently visited with a friend. That shop had a huge turnover and we regularly visited there on a weekly basis. The Ruger .458 was a steal at $400 in like new condition. I figured I could turn that into a Ruger No.1 in .45-70! And that happened at the same shop. I had forewarned them that I really wanted a No.1 in a good condition .45-70, and they agreed to take the .458 back in exchange.

Prior to that, I’d already owned two Marlins in .45-70, so was really looking forward to a No.1 in the same cartridge, knowing full well there would be great improvements in ballistics over the Marlins – not that I was in any way disappointed with the Marlins, but the Ruger simply had a great deal more potential due to it’s superior strength and ability to shoot longer and heavier bullets.

And that first Ruger No.1 in .45-70 never disappointed either. I finally developed a load using the Hornady 500gr at 2000 fps, 200 fps more than the Hornady manual at apparently safe psi. The cases were Remington nickle-plated (that lasted “forever”), WLRM primers and 60 grains of AA2015, at 2.93″ COL (same as Hornady and Lyman), crimped in the cannelure because the load was somewhat compressed. My average was (ironically) 2015 fps from AA2015! I sent the details to Accurate for testing (US authorities wouldn’t allow sending live ammo across the border for testing without a lot of hassles), so a “good guy” (well known in those circles) suggested I sent the recipe. It took a couple of months before I heard back from Bill Falen Jr. (head ballistician) by phone. We chatted for well over 1/2 hr at their expense. I asked any questions I could think of and he warmly responded. But his question was the first: “What was the recoil like?”, from that light Ruger No.1 with a relatively slim 22″ barrel. With scope it barely weighed 8 lbs firing loads that simulated a factory .458 Win Mag 500gr!

In summary, he declared the load safe at an average of 63,200 psi. None of the test loads went over 65,000 psi. But they got an average of 2096 fps from the same load but had to seat the bullet deeper by 1/10th of an inch due to a shorter throat in their 24″ test barrel – raising the psi somewhat from what I was getting from my Ruger with a longer throat.

Later on, another trade for a new Ruger No.1 in .45-70 was done at a closer shop where I’d done a lot of business, and our son, Phil, gained possession of the original No.1. I’d planned to have the throat extended on the new No.1 to enable heavier and longer bullets (monolithics) to be seated 1/4 inch less deeply to permit the use of slower powders and better overall performance. (I’d previously tried H4895 in the former No.1, and with good results, but it was limited in space for enough of that powder). I shot the new rifle for about three months prior to having the throat extended (not the chamber) to have a base for comparison. It turned out that the throat on the new Ruger was actually shorter than that of the former used Ruger, so that was even more of a reason to have the throat lengthened by about 0.30″. (It may actually have been a bit longer when the gunsmith was done with it – he asked how deep, and I said “about 1/4 inch”, and he replied ” it’s at least .30 inch now”, so he finished it, and that may have taken it a bit beyond .30″… and I never measured it to find out because I found that 0.25″ to 0.30″ was enough to allow 1/4″ seating of all bullets, which is what I was looking for to begin with.)

< The Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (long throat) with the Burris Silver Safari fixed 4X scope with a long eye relief of +5″. As seen here it weighed just under 8 lbs.

< This was recorded at one of my bear hunting sites. It was a 450gr Swift AF. Add 12 fps for correction to MV.

< At the same place and time, this was recorded by a 500gr Hornady RN. The powder for each was H335: 75 grains for the 500gr and 76 for the 450gr. Add 14 fps for the 500gr for correction to MV.

That was my all-time favorite rifle for 20 years until it got traded for the Ruger No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum in 2017.

The RUGER No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum: This, without much doubt, will be the last centerfire rifle I will ever have in my possession. All others will go first. In fact, I’ve already started a blog to that effect, but it will not be published until I’m ready to “hang ’em up”. (Pic on the header at top of page)

It is simply an amazing rifle to handle, which belies its weight. The balance is perfect even with six loaded heavyweight cartridges in the buttstock cartridge holder. As recently reviewed again, I traded my dearly loved Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT for it, plus a shotgun. As explained a few times, I didn’t need its ballistics, but it’s heft I did need to mitigate recoil effect at this stage of life (Soon to be 87 years young!). Ballistics are similar to the .45-70 LT, plus a bit, but with the extra weight and ports, plus some reduced loads, it’s like a heavy push. For example, the cartridges seen below on the buttstock are three 600gr Barnes and three 550gr Woodleighs. They will be leaving the muzzle at 1600 – 1650 fps. The 600gr Barnes Originals have .050″ thick jackets and a .409 SD, plus a .454 BC. All told – and at 1650 fps – at 1000 yards they have a greater TE (terminal effect) than a .375 H&H has at the muzzle firing a 300gr Partition at 2600 fps: 120 TE for the .458 at 1000 yards and 106 TE for the .375 H&H at the muzzle! All that with a recoil of less than 30 ft-lbs from the .458, or less than a .300 Win Mag! Sure, the trajectory is like a rainbow but with a ladder-type rear sight it’s doable… or moreso with one of the new-fangled scopes with turrets all over!

In sweet addition, it is handsome and non-complicated! One big bullet for everything, anywhere is just perfection for whoever asks the question: “What rifle/cartridge is perfect for short range, in your face big-bad, evil-smellin’ monsters… or elk at 1000 yards?”

The ANSWER!!

<10.25 lbs without ammo <11 lbs exactly with those six cartridges. They average 2oz each.

Because of it’s balance and handiness, the weight seems somewhat normal. Held in one hand (right or left) the grip for balance and smooth handling is with the back edge of the hand just where the wood and metal meld together. “But it’s a single-shot!” Yep! If you’ll learn to shoot one, that’s all you’ll ever need… for anything and everything!

*(The scope is a 2-7 x 32mm Nikon. It was purchased new for the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT and took it’s heavy punches on the chin without complaint! When traded for the Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag, that Nikon went onto the .458 Win Mag where it has taken more heavyweight punches without objection! The Burris Silver Safari fixed 4x pictured above on the Ruger LT is now on my son’s .356 Winchester chasing deer this week in New Brunswick. Who needs that Euro stuff that’s way over priced, anyway?)

**The above math giving a TE number is a slight modification of Dr Ron Berry’s formula: His results, using the same load under the same conditions would have been 1.2 for the 600gr at 1000 yards, and 1.06 for the .375 H&H 300gr load of 2600 fps at the muzzle. I’ve simply moved the decimal two digits to the right, calling it TE (terminal effect) as a comparative thing with other cartridges and their loads.

Hoping this has been insightful for some, and perhaps even a bit entertaining…

Till the next

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

By the NUMBERS

(This blog was written a few weeks ago, and is a stand in for P2 of “Surprised or Unimpressed by Your Handloads”. The cause of that is due to Internet service not working consistently, or not at all, for several days. It was resolved today (Sunday, Oct 23) by the installation of a new modem. P2 of the original theme is planned for next week.)

Do numbers matter?

To some, yes! To others, not…

I’m referring to rifle ballistics, or what’s more commonly called a rifle’s “power” that influences in one way or another it’s effect on the class of game being hunted. For instance, as a non-resident of Alaska and booking a very expensive grizzly bear hunt with a reputable outfitter, which would you choose between these two rifles assuming you were as proficient with one as the other: a .308 Win or .338 Win Mag, and why?

If it were I, knowing I can shoot a .338 Win Mag as well as a .308 Win, the .338 would go with me to Alaska, hands down! Why? Because of its ballistics. It can fire a 250gr 100 fps faster than the .308 can shoot a 180gr, plus it has a larger diameter bullet by 21% in cross-sectional area and a significantly higher sectional density of .313 vs .271. Then the momentum factor is 44% greater (at the muzzle) and the kinetic energy is 4048 ft-lbs vs 2723 ft-lbs, or nearly 50% greater! If we want more specifics than that, standard factory ammo for the .338 is 2660 fps for a 250gr, and 2610 fps for a 180gr in the .308. However, in practical handloads about 2800 fps is possible for the 250gr from a 24″ barrel and about 2700 for a 24″ .308. Yet most .308s have 22″ tubes, so that may be a bit generous for a 22″.

< I’ve used a chronograph to tell me the muzzle velocity (MV) of a particular rifle load for the past thirty-five years. This particular result was from a 450gr A-Frame in .458″ from my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (long throat). Having a computer ballistics program, I put in the relevant numbers for elevation, temps, and the bullet’s BC and MV that provide a ballpark figure for expected downrange results.

How then do we assemble such data in a meaningful and comparative way? Winchester, as one example, provides images of animal heads of game recommended to be taken by the ammo in each box. Plus they may also give trajectory and kinetic energy at those distances. Yet, that should be verified at a range as to trajectory, but without a chronograph we could only assume the bullets are leaving as fast as promoted. Truth be told, rarely is such the case!

Most savvy hunters, who are handloaders (maybe 10%), know that the .338 was intended for the likes of Alaskan grizzly and brown bear, plus the largest moose. So given the choice between a .308 Win (and similar cartridges) and the .338 Win Mag, they will likely choose the .338, assuming no real issues regarding the differences in recoil; and likely a majority of those will choose a premium 250gr.

In other words, plainly and simply, a .308 Win is judged as a very good whitetail round whereas the .338 Win Mag is viewed for larger and more dangerous game.

Still, to put a fine point on all that due to better bullets and overall potential improved ballistics for each, how should we compare the two? The .308 Win is only 100 fps slower than the same 180gr bullet fired from a .30-06 rifle of same length barrel – other matters equal, or nearly so. Yet the .30-06 is still perceived by many as the “be-all” and “do-all” cartridge for anything from small game to large moose size, so who is right? Is a powerful medium-bore redundant?

I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, who thinks that classes of game must become part of any discussion, as well as physical conditions of the hunt if they’re known.

< If you had a .375 H&H that you were familiar with, as well as a .308 Win, would you not choose the .375 for this Yukon grizzly? Ted used a 270gr custom bonded core bullet in his 9.3 x 62.

When I read, on the forums or other sources of information, of someone killing 40 elk or 31 black bear during a lifetime of hunting using a particular favorite cartridge, THAT tells me nothing that’s meaningful, absent details re: ballistics, ranges, physical conditions, game sizes and where hit, and how many shots were fired!

The handloader (who is said to be no more than 10% of the general hunting population – and I find that believable) has several more options than offered by the cartridge companies, so we tend to be shooters as well as hunters. More shooting means better shooting, as well as discretionary shooting and hunting.

Dr Ron Berry (“Riflecrank” on the 24hr campfire), on the .458 Winchester Magnum thread, incorporated cartridge caliber, bullet weight, impact velocity, and sectional density (SD) in a suggested formula. Then, all that is divided by 84,000 (I forget why), but that gives a quotient which may then be compared to results from other cartridges. Optimum game weight can be estimated depending on accrude field results from various other loads and cartridges. I’ve found the end result to be similar to mine, so often I use both formulas to get an average.

For example: (the hunt for grizzly in Alaska) If a 250gr/.338″ Partition hits the griz at 100 yards slightly angling away – if it hits behind the on shoulder, 1/3 to 1/2 way up and takes out the off shoulder, the bullet should be making about 2600 fps/ 3752 ft-lbs at impact (that’s from a reload of 2800 fps).

Ron’s formula: 2600 x 250 x .313 x .338/84,000 = 0.819 x (2000 as an average result from all cartridges) = 1638 lbs. Because it was a good hit taking out lungs and some plumbing, plus a shoulder I’d rate it as capable for up to a 1600 lb soft-skinned beast at 100 yards. If multiplied by 2500 because of excellent shooting through both shoulders, an outside rating to a 2000 lb soft-skinned animal isn’t extraordinary.

Because I want to maintain the use of TE (Terminal Effect) of one cartridge load versus another (as I’ve done in the past), I simply shortcut Ron’s formula to this: 2600 x 250 x .313 x .338/840 = 81.9 TE x 20, depending on the conditions mentioned above. The end result would be the same except it gives a TE number to maintain the concept I’ve used in my former formula (12.5 for poor shooting, 15 – 18 for average shooting, 20 -25 for good to excellent shooting).

The previous formula I created was: KEI x SD x CSA = TE (kinetic energy at impact x sectional density x cross-sectional area of bullet = TE) In this case: 3752 x .313 x .0897 = 105.3 TE x 20 = 2107 lbs, so call it 2100 lbs.

So, between Ron’s formula and my slight modification of his, we come up with 2000 lbs depending on if we multiply by 2000 or 2500 (max), judged according to the animal and conditions. I chose 2000 as average, but it could be anything in that range – as a guideline ONLY!

My old formula gives 2100 lbs as an average. Is there really that much distinction between a 1600 lb Eland and 2000 lb? Somehow I doubt it. Eland have been shot using .30-06’s! It is WHAT you hit ’em with and where! The WHERE is not this article’s project, but the WHAT is!

A few days ago, my son reported that his best friend shot a troublesome black bear that was rummaging in their garbage late each evening. After several attempts to discourage those activities at their new beautiful home he’d built in cottage country (not far from where I’m writing this) he shot it with his .30-30, which was perfectly legal. But the bear refused to die! It started to bawl which along with the gun shot alarmed the next-door neighbors! He ended up shooting the bear four or five times before it stopped bawling! Those were factory loads, and, of course, a good 170gr in the “right place” will terminate almost any bear with a single shot. His father had killed many bears using a .30-30 that wanted the honey from his apperies, but those were shots in daylight from his nearby hideout. Nonetheless, a 170gr/.308 caliber at an impact of around 1900 fps in any place other than the central nervous system (brain or spine) may result in a cripple that refuses to die immediately! Away from “civilization”, his father had ample space and time to use multiple shots from his .30-30 on hungry bears.

<This isn’t a big bear, but it’s a hungry one in fall conditions getting ready for hibernation. If it were rummaging in my garage or shed, it would have been bold enough to track down “food” at any cost! Would I use a .30-30 if that’s all I had? Not with a 150gr, but a good 170gr… Yes! BUT, one through the lungs will not kill it right away, and if it were on my property it might die on someone else’s property! That could be a problem! A shotgun slug would be much better for a lung shot, or a big bore handgun (where legal) has several advantages. But a relatively fast large bore rifle will stop a bear in it’s tracks with a heart-lung shot. I know that from ample experience. But why is that so?

Massive blood loss faster drops blood pressure to zero so the brain is immediately starved of oxygen! The size hole through the lungs determines how quickly blood pressure drops to zero. When that happens, DRT happens! The brain is starved of oxygen. And the faster a big-bore bullet is moving at impact, the quicker that happens because flesh, vessels, arteries and bone are “thrown” farther to the side. A relatively flat tip and ultimate bullet construction, weight and impact velocity bring it all together.

< This was a “trophy” bear shot by my .45-70. The guts are out and it has been hanging overnight in a rainfall that has washed the blood from its fur coat. But when I found it dead in the alders, it’s whole right side from shoulder to tail was saturated by blood. The entrance hole is over 2-inches, and the bullet was retrieved in the offside armpit against the hide.

< The bullet… a 400gr Speer. Impact was about 1540 fps and it retained 90.5% of initial weight. MV was 1865 fps from my Marlin in .45-70.

There’s no doubt that grizzly have been terminated by bullets from many cartridges, including .30-06’s. But, like other dangerous and/or large animals, there are often great distinctions in sizes, distances, conditions, angles and attitudes! Like Hagel, I want to go well prepared for the worst case scenarios, not the best, and there are literally thousands of potential scenarios, only a few of which are discussed on public forums.

For example: For moose hunting in the far north of our Province of Ontario, I chose cartridges and rifles for the largest bull at a 1/4 going-away angle that would, from a steady hold and minimal wind, produce a minimum of 2000 ft-lbs/1800 fps at impact from a premium projectile at 500 yards. And that was MINIMUM! Add to that the prospect of a 500 – 600 yard shot, or none at all, with a swamp, lake, river, stream or ravine beyond that, I knew that a .300 magnum was minimal! But a .340 WBY was not! 1800 fps is borderline for some expansion of a Partition, and many “authorities” recommend 2000 fps as minimum! And if I took the advice of an Ontario instructor of new moose hunters, then at least as a “rule of thumb”, he recommended 2 ft-lbs of KE for every 1 pound of moose live weight. That was average from the experience of decades of moose sizes and conditions in Ontario’s north lands.

Where I expected to hunt, ranges and conditions could vary almost infinitely! Then add the animal… moose differ greatly in size, and I only ever had a bull tag. And that would demand some evidence of antlers, tiny to large, that would give an impression of age and size. But there’s a fact about getting a moose on the ground – there’s no shrinkage in walking up to it! And it’s absolutely certain that NOT any one of the 100,000 moose hunters of Ontario who gets a license for ANY moose is going to pass on it, no matter its size, if he thinks he can make the shot! So I had to go prepared for the largest – up to 1400 lbs – at the greatest distance possible, and likely NOT at the best angle if it was walking toward a lake or forrest only 50 meters away! All that pre-empted a .30-06, and while I toted a .300 Win Mag as a backup, I knew even it was not the best for some worst-case scenarios! A .340 WBY was!

Eventually, a 9.3 x 62 replaced the .340, because the NUMBERS revealed it would be as adequate as the .340 for my self-imposed limit of 500 yards. My load of a 286gr NP at 2640 fps would give about 1850 fps and 2175 ft-lbs at 500 yards. But more importantly than the KE number is the fact that it gave the same TE number as the .340 at that range, in a lighter and handier package… 70TE. I like 50TE as a minimum at impact for a bull of 1000 to 1200 lbs. 70 x 20 (good to excellent shooting) = 1400 lbs from a single shot to heart-lungs. The animal may still move out some, but not far away. But still, I might hesitate if it were on the edge of a lake.

So, I’m NOT a minimalist. In life, compromise may be necessary in some matters, but for me never in hunting, especially if the prospect of danger or the unexpected could happen. So, in choosing a rifle and load, we should consider those prospects as well as what might be thought of as “normal”.

And the NUMBERS are there for good enough reasons… don’t ignore or minimize them even at a time when the bullet is idealized.

<Recorded while testing a load for the 250gr AccuBond in my 9.3 x 62 Tikka T3. Chrony was 15′ from the muzzle, so add 9 fps for correction to MV. With a .492 BC, that bullet makes over 2000 ft-lbs at 500 yards. Plenty for average moose at that range – with a “good” hit! Still, the 286gr Partition would be my preference.

At the moment, with the scarcety of any bullets, some are resurrecting some old cup-n-cores, and finding they still work! But there are differences! You still can’t just substitute a Nosler Partition (having been around for a long time) for another bullet of the same caliber and weight and expect the same results! That’s something I had to learn a long time ago.

I was developing handloads for my first .35 Whelen – an M 7400 – and getting good results from a combination of RL-15 and the 250gr Hornady SP. 2600 fps seemed very “normal” with no signs of excessive pressure from the 22″ barrel. But, from the 250gr Partition I couldn’t go much over 2400 fps without “signs” (on the cartridge case) of excess pressure! In fact, one of the manuals I came into possession of later (no longer in my collection) showed clearly that the 250gr Partition could NOT be shot at the same MVs as the Hornady without unsafe pressure. And there are those who believe that a “softer” bullet may create higher psi than a “hard” bullet! There’s a whole lot more to it than that! Ogive being one of them, and the Partition’s “partition” another! So, whatever bullets we test, initally they should NOT be handloaded at “max” (however that’s defined) according to the manual produced for that bullet, and certainly NOT based on some manual produced for another brand!

At the time, it was VERY obvious that, for whatever the real reason, the 250gr/.358″ Nosler Partition was causing a great deal more (unsafe) PSI to attain 2500 fps than the 250gr Hornady SP was in (safely) attaining 2600 fps.

In addition, from current experience, the 225gr/ .358″ Nosler Partition makes 30 fps higher MV (average) than the 225gr Nosler AccuBond, using two grains LESS of the same powder (CFE-223) from my .35 Whelen. The same load of 65 grains of CFE 223 for each of those 225gr Nosler bullets in .358″ gave 2632 fps for the 225gr AccuBond and 2768 fps for the 225gr Partition – from the same can of CFE – a difference of 132 fps in favor of the Partition seated to the same depth in the case. AND… their manual shows the exact same results from all cartridges regardless of the number of bullets in a particular weight class! In .308″, for instance, there are five 180gr distinct Nosler bullets, and they are ALL given the exact same results for any of the .308-caliber cartridges used. That could be from a .300 RUM or .308 Win! And ALL manuals do that same act! And we trust them? Implicitly? NOT this handloader…

<The Tikka/Sako in 9.3 x 62

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Surprised or Unimpressed by Your Handloads?

I’m sure we’ve all had (or still have) cartridges, bullets and rifles that gave results way beyond designations or expectations. So in this space I want to nominate a few from my collections and experiences. This might inspire you to select a few from your experiences, and if you do, I’d like to hear about it.

CARTRIDGES: I’ve significant experience in handloading the following, and in several of them there were multiple versions: .22 Hornet, .223 Rem (3), .25-06, 6.5 x 55 (2), .270 Win, 7-08 Reminton, 7mm Rem Mag (3), 7mm Wby Mag, .30-06 (2), .300 Win Mag (6), .300 Wby Mag, .308 Norma Mag, 7.62 x 54R, .338 Win Mag (3), .340 Wby Mag, .350 Rem Mag (2), .35 Whelen (3), 9.3 x 62, .375 H&H (3), .44 Rem Mag, .45-70 (8), and .458 Win Mag (3). Also I developed handloads for friends and family in the following: .308 Win, .356 Win, .375 Win and .444 Marlin.

The cartridges that were capable of producing results better than prophesied from both factory claims and handloads were several, and a few of those were much better than what I’d hoped for. Sometimes that was due to the rifle (s), but mostly from a combination of the right powder (and right amount), best bullet for the application, and then the rifle itself. Some had longer barrels which aided, but others had relatively short barrels that didn’t seem to hinder them in producing unexpected results.

The cartridges that gave very satisfying overall results that were at the top of their game without a lot of fuss and bother were: .223 Rem, .25-06, 7mm Rem and Wby mags, . 300 magnums .35 Whelen, .356 Winchester and .375 H&H.

But those that produced the best results (often much better than either expected or forecast) were: the .270 Win (22″ barrel), 7-08 Remington (22″), the 26″ .338 Win Mag, the 2nd .350 Rem Mag (22″ barrel), the 9.3 x 62 (22.4″ barrel), the 18″ .44 Rem Mag, most of the .45-70s and two of the .458s.

< This was my “much loved” Ruger 96/44 in .44 Rem Mag. The stock was stained birchwood. It wasn’t long before the brownish stain began to disappear on the forearm and pistol grip where it was handled. I then painted it black with an acrilic paint that was supposed to resist outdoor weather and abuse. It soon started to come off. I sanded it, and covered it again with another black paint product. Same story. I’d already done a lot of searching for the “right” paint in several hardware stores, but didn’t want an orange or red looking rifle. Eventually, I came across what I thought would be a durable paint that would resist dings, scratches and the oils and sweat from my hands. Next was the color. What you see here is the result. It was called “Forest Green”, and it lived up to promises. It took all abuses without dings, scratches, dirt and sweaty palms just like it had freshly come from a factory! As you see it there, it was doing it’s job of protecting me from the bears while delivering their meals to the bait site. There, it was about 150 yards from the bait.

I should never have sold it! Today, it would be worth a small fortune! It was short, light, handy and powerful at close range. It had a rotary clip and was very fast in working the lever that only opened about 45* to eject a spent cartridge and load another. It was perhaps the best rifle I’d ever owned for its job! It usually got loaded with the Speer 270gr and 300gr, or the Hornady 300gr. MVs were: ~2000 fps for the 270s and nearly 1700 fps for the 300s. Those loads were from compressed loads of either WW296 or H110. Never was there even a hint of excess pressure during the decade long ownership period. Yes… I’m fully aware of those numbers exceeding “book” values. And brass lasted “forever”!

Without a lot of fanfare, here are some of those results from each of the very best, including an explanation or comment as to why they proved “best” in overall results, and in some cases were exceptional.

First up is a cartridge I’d never previously been impressed with, thinking there were others of its kind that were more desirable.

The .270 Winchester in a Rem 700 SS mountain rifle (22″): Using RL-22, everything was at least 100 fps faster than expected or predicted. +3000 fps from 150gr Hornadys, one of which flew through a standing 8-9 inch tree like it wasn’t there! This was an investment rifle that got traded for something else of greater value to me without loss of the cost. The rifle traded for was a M700 Remington BDL, 7mm Rem Mag with a left-hand action and a 24″ barrel. It was like new because it was rarely fired. The previous owner apparently didn’t like the recoil. Top velocity of that rifle was 2940 fps for 175s from a dose of RL-22.

Similar to mine.

7mm-08 Remington in a M70 Winchester Featherweight. I got a real bargain on this one. Someone with ten thumbs tried to free-float the barrel, finally leaving it at a gun shop I frequently visited. The young manager tried to pawn it off on me for $450 during three visits to his shop. Well, he did lower the price to $400 on my second trip south to Toronto. Still… “No thanks”. On the 3rd stop-in his shop, as I was heading for the door… “How about $350?”. I didn’t quite make it to the door handle, turned, and said, “Deal!”. After a couple of hours work on the stock, some cleaning of the wood and metal, it became a Cinderella! And, it was a shooter, digesting anything I fed it except the top “recommended” fuel… After trying several propellants, I got a hint from “somewhere” (that I just now don’t recall) to give IMR 4064 a try… Well, whatever the books say, and whoever wrote the “books” missed the mark – at least for Cinderella! I was getting results that could have been suited to a .280 Rem!

It was another investment piece, and I had no intention of keeping it but it went buck hunting that fall loaded with the 162gr Hornady BT at ~ 2800 fps. I came within seconds of pulling the trigger on a great buck on the wrong side of the main dirt road, waiting till it crossed to my side. It crossed to my side (I couldn’t legally shoot across the road) but was spooked by hunters in a pickup that came close to hitting it. It disappeared in brush below me and when it emerged it was hitting about 40 mph as it crossed the trail I was on. I did a followup but never caught up.

The rifle was traded (as planned) for the nearly new .270 discussed briefly above without $$ exchanged.

< This traded for the .270

A 26″ barrelled .338 Win Mag in a Browning SS A-Bolt LH. I’ve told that story too many times already. The goal was to rechamber it to a .340 Wby Mag, which happened about a year after I took ownership. In the meantime I handloaded it as a .338 Win Mag. Results were stellar, to the point of nearly calling off the rechambering plan. A load of H3100 behind the 250gr Hornady SP Interloc went into 3/4″ at 300 yards! That was one of those rare days when “it all comes together”. I never duplicated that, but came close a couple of times. Plus, a good load of RL-19 fired that same bullet at 2842 fps. The gun was magical!

<The .338 Win Mag rechambered to the .340 Wby

A second .350 Rem Mag. This was the model 673 with the laminated stock, 22″ barrel and useless steel “ventilated rib” on top. The first was the 700 Classic in that chambering. That one should have been kept. It was handsome, relatively lightweight with nice walnut, and perfectly balanced. The main fault was a lack of good reloading data – and that was mostly the result of it’s image from the past… a short and handy “powerhouse” for relatively modest ranges. So most manuals met those expectations – so did the Remington factory ammo. The highest MV published for a 250gr was around 2400 fps, so the manuals mimicked that. In those days I tended to respect the limits of the manuals, but I was disappointed with those results, though the rifle itself was a beauty. However, the short action didn’t give much (or any) room for going beyond the manuals when handloads were limited by both the short case and short action!

The M673, however (after my gunsmith sorted out a rather serious problem of the chamber being undersize from lack of finishing) proved to be all that I expected, and more! Plus, I’d learned a whole lot more about venturing with handloads.

Incidentally, today’s handloads for the .350 Rem Mag and the .35 Whelen are where they should have been from the beginning. The Whelen was hamstrung because of a false belief that CUP and PSI were the same thing in pressure. The .350 Rem Mag was hamstrung by a poor understanding of how it COULD be loaded and SHOULD have been loaded to attain 63,000 psi.

Check this out: BARNES #4: 20″ barrel = 2943 fps from their 200gr TSX, and 2764 fps from their 225gr TSX using TAC powder. Meanwhile, Remington is still producing a factory 200gr load advertised at 2675 fps from a 20″! Barnes’ load of the 200 TSX from a 20″ beats that by 268 fps! And Nosler #6 shows 2571 fps for their 250gr from a 22″ barrel. The actual results of Remington’s 250gr RN in my “Classic” with a 22″ barrel was 2247 fps average for 10 shots! (I wanted the brass for reloads). Though I don’t have Nosler’s latest, I understand the results are still better.

My outcome from the M673 (22″) = 2710 fps (average) from the 250gr GS from a compressed load of RL-15. The last load fired from that rifle went three into 3/8″ (.375) at a hundred at 2738 fps corrected average. When I think how cheated I was by paying attention to those miserable manual results and factory ammo at the time of the 700 Classic, I fume inside!

< A work day for the .350 Rem Mag. It was loaded with the 250gr Speer Grand Slam at +2700 fps.

More comin’ on “Surprised or Unimpressed? by Your Handloads”

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Redundancy

In reading a recent extended thread on a forum where three similar 7mm cartridges were compared, I came to the same conclusion I’ve held for many years – that forum contributers who have something worthwhile to say are few. And often a particular thread may be dominated by a few who don’t have a lot to say that’s worthwhile.

The above mentioned thread was initially started by someone promoting the historic 7 x 57 Mauser and its ballistic position in the non magnum echelon of 7mms. Of course, the inevitable immediate responses were to compare it with the 7-08 Remington in factory rifle products, ammo, psi, and handloads. Early in the discussion someone introduced the .280 Remington, and soon shooters and hunters emerged giving their experiences and views – including handloads and results in hunting. In several cases all three cartridges in bolt-action rifles had been used by several hunters on deer and elk. And often the favorite weight bullet in all three cartridges were a 139gr Hornady and 140gr Nosler, plus a few others of similar weights.

Most who chose the 7 x 57 was because of nostalgia, or a family hand down with nice weight and beautiful wood, or an “excellent buy”. But given the popularity of the 7-08 and it’s availability everywhere, handload components easily accessible, and relatively cheap and accurate rifles, why not just buy a 7-08? Many are doing that anyway who want an accurate, lightweight rifle that can do whatever a 7 x 57 could do. A claim that the .280 Rem has superior ballistics was promoted by a few. < Featherweight M70 Winchester in 7-08

I’ll say this up front: I’ve had an attraction to 7mms from the get-go. My first owned centerfire rifle was a 7×57 – an Argentinean Mauser still in its grease. And a beautiful rifle after a good cleaning. A box of Imperial (Canadian) 160gr RNs was purchased and it went hunting for whitetails. But the bolt handle stood straight up when the action was opened, so a scope couldn’t be mounted without some ugly disfiguring of this piece of art, so it got traded for a used Mauser ’98 in .30-06.

More recently, serious consideration has been given to another 7-08 for deer and wolf, having owned a Featherweight Winchester 70, and still having dies and some other components. Then, pre-covid, my son purchased an identical Featherweight in M70. However, I finally decided against it in favor of another .35 Whelen. (That’s another story that in part relates to the current theme.)

< A Traditions OUTFITTER G3 in .35 Whelen with a 3 – 9 x 40mm Vortex Diamondback scope.

So, the final consensus from the thread is that what one will do, so will the others if deer hunting is the main focus. Redundancy happens when too much of the same thing exists in the same space. And, of course, it’s that “must have one of those too” feeling because of the fear of missing something that might give a temporary sense of satisfaction that comes from mere possession.

From a practical point of view (economics and availability) the 7-08 is the best choice. Yet, from a “want” view, with economics and need not an issue, it may simply be to scratch an itch.

It was mentioned by a prominent gun writer, John Barsness, that he’d never known (seen) a colleague “gun writer” who ever used 175gr component bullets in their 7s, and I got the impression he didn’t either. As a matter of fact, in all the hunting reports I’ve read in sports’ magazines or forums, usually it’s 140s to 160s that are predominately used in BG hunting, and especially premium160s for larger BG. I’ve wondered why because for the 7 mags, I’ve always chosen 175s when hunting BG. Yet for the 7-08 I loaded 162s for our big Northern whitetails.

The 175gr Nosler Partition made 3015 fps from my 26″ Ruger No.1 in 7 Rem Mag from a dose of RL-22, and 3000 fps from my 24″ 7mm Weatherby Mag using the same RL-22.

<A single 175gr Nosler Partition at 3000 fps from a 7mm Weatherby Magnum cartridge killed this bear. Bullet impact was between neck and shoulder on the right side and made exit on the left flank in front of the hip. It was a DRT. Range was 60 yards.

Because we never know what size bear we may end up shooting on a given hunt – that is not necessarily for a “trophy” – nor the exact conditions, I always loaded the 175s.

On the thread referred to above, most were hunting deer (great variance in sizes) and 139gr – 140gr was the ticket from 2750 – 3000 fps.

In handloads: 2800 to 2950 fps from both the 7-08 and 7 x 57 average.

In handloads: 2900 – 3150 fps from a .280 Rem. average for 140s depending on barrel length and the handloader.

There would be a slight difference in recoil depending on amount of powder used, MV and rifle weight. But the average 7-08 will be lighter than the average .280 that will burn about 10 grains more powder and give ~150 fps more MV per bullet weight.

I’m thinking that any differences in handloaded ballistics between the 7 x 57 and 7-08 will depend on the length of individual barrels, free bore, tightness of bore, COLs, powder used, psi, and the personality, goal and experience of the handloader – and NOT inherent differences in the cartridges.

The .280 Remington is, of course, a larger case that can hold ~10 grains more of the same powder, or a slightly slower powder like RL-22, so it’s expected – all else equal, including barrel lengths and psi – that it could/should give a minimum of 100 – 200 fps increase in MV over the others. And I would not restrict the 7 x 57 nor the .280 to SAAMI specs in psi. The 7-08 is already at max of 62,000 psi (SAAMI) but it too could be safely pushed to 65,000 psi if the .270 is safe at that pressure according to SAAMI.

Of course, all that depends on the individual rifle and the handloader’s experience for reading any excessive psi. ALL manuals make reference to excessive pressure “signs”! SO! IF pressure signs can’t be “read”, why do ALL manuals make reference to it? They even make DISCLAIMERS re their loads! YOU and I are on our own, they’ve abandoned us in that regard! That’s an overload in REDUNDANCY since many on the forums who may have results greater than the manuals use the disclaimer: “And there were NO SIGNS of excess pressure”!!

So one handloader might claim 2750 fps for a 140 from his “precious” 7 x 57, and another might claim 3000 fps for a 140 from his “precious” 7 x 57… and both might be using safe handloads – NO SIGNS of excessive pressure!

Personally? If all three were available at my fave emporium, a purchase decision of one over the others would NOT be based on hubris, ballistics or nostalgia!

< A new Savage in 7mm-08 Rem for $641 CD. 22″ button rifled, 9.5″ twist barrel, clip magazine holds 4, syn stock, and a Bushnell Banner 3 – 9 x 40mm scope bore sighted and ready to go.

What then?

Hints given above: Since I’ve a rather strong pragmatic side to my personality, I’d rule out the .280 and choose one not in that pile, but a 7 Rem Mag – a .280 is an “also ran” in my view. That leaves the contest between the 7-08 and 7 x 57 that basically are twins in ballistics when handloads are used ignoring SAAMI in new bolt-action rifles. So any major distinctions in cost would be a main issue, then how they fit me. If they were relatively close in initial cost and fit, the balancing factor would be any advantages in handloading: If the purchase of factory ammo was important for hunting or having brass for reloads, in North America that would favor the 7-08. Then action length: The 7-08 usually comes in a short action that may hinder seating long bullets long. The 7 x 57 comes in a long action that usually allows longer seating of long (heavier) bullets giving some potential advantage in ballistics over the 7-08. But the Savage in 7-08 does have a long action so that point is moot for me.

So cost and fit not being major issues, it would come down to convenience in handloading the longer/heavier bullets in attaining their full potential. I’d not want to think I’d be hamstrung by the action. The M70 Featherweight in 7-08 has a longer action than the M7 by Remington, so I would choose it over the M7. In this area, Savage has dominated in the sales of 7-08s, so apparently action length isn’t a concern for the many users who purchase locally.

It’s good to have options, but options that become repetitive can also become redundant. I’ve two rifles that some might consider redundant based on my own terms: a .35 Whelen (a recent acquisition) and a 9.3 x 62 (.366-caliber). The difference in potential ballistics might be comparable to the .308 Win and the .30-06 with any advantage going to the .30-06. So, why the purchase of the .35 Whelen? Because there are worthy hunting bullets lighter than 250 grains, like 180s, 200s and 225s, which don’t exist in 9.3 in a good to excellent all-purpose format. I wanted a medium bore to shoot premium American made projectiles particularly in 200 and 225gr, that isn’t currently manufactured in 9.3 by the big six American bullet makers, so the purchase of a .35 Whelen (for which I already had dies and cases due to previous ownership of a .35 Whelen). I dithered some time over a 7-08, but when a single-shot, compact and lightweight .35 Whelen suddenly appeared at “my” emporium, unhesitatingly I snatched one. As I said, I already had the components for handloads plus the dies. It is a complement to the 9.3 x 62, and using the lighter bullets it addressed the need for a light, short and handy “walk about” powerhouse. No redundancy there in my view. A mild handload of a180gr at 2700 reflects its parent case, a 200gr TTSX at 3000 fps equals a .300 Win Mag (up close anyway), and a 225 AB at 2850 is the equivalent of the new .338 RPM by Weatherby – of which I viewed its first use by the grandson of Roy. A 22.5 year old black bear was taken in the western mountains at 225 yards using a factory loaded 225gr AccuBond at 2825 fps… One and done!

I like “One and done” in rifles!

<A .35 Whelen cartridge on left loaded with a 225gr AccuBond at 2840 fps. The cartridge on the right is a 9.3 x 62 loaded with a 286 Nosler Partition to 2640 fps.

Such efficiency is never redundant!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Analysis of Bullet Effects from Animals and Media

Analysis of bullets to be used in test media and/or hunting should take place both prior to shooting and after retrieval from game and/or media.

We most often do the pre-analyses on the recommendation of others we know or have confidence in, plus the promotional videos and magazine ads and articles. Then they are tested for accuracy, whether factory products or handloads. If all goes well in accuracy then most hunters assume they’ll work as promoted. With the exception of at least one hunter I know, that’s the general rule.

That one hunter is yours truly! At one time I was among those who followed the sheep “rule”. But not today! I want to see for myself the results from tough media tests. Some media, like wet newspapers, will produce the perfect “mushroom” when shot slow enough to create the desired appearance! I use hard cover books and dry glossy magazines along with some wood products such as plywood and planks. If a bullet makes it through all that with an exit, it will break heavy bone and keep on going with an exit, or through vital organs that will be destroyed in the process. That separates the pretenders from those that do the job under far less than ideal conditions. I agree with Hagel because his view accords with my own experiences and findings. I’ve had one too many failures from putting trust in the opinions of others (often being paid to give theirs), and one failure is too many! Hagel was firm in his belief and practice that: “A hunter should use a rifle and bullet that will succeed not only when conditions are perfect but when conditions are most unfavorable”, or a sentiment to that effect.

Principle No.1: Any bullet intended for killing any game – small to large, including so-called “dangerous game” – must have the inherent integrity to do so under ALL conditions of use. No exceptions and no excuses.

Principle No.2: The bullet chosen should be the best weight and style for the most efficient ballistics from the rifle, and most suitable for the game and environment.

Principle No.3: The rifle and cartridge chosen should leave no room for excuses when errors in calculation of game weight and/or potentrial ranges are made (see Hagel’s comment). Minimalists should pay attention!

HOW DOES A BULLET DO ITS WORK?

A proper (or adequate) understanding of this should make decisions for us in the choice of firearms and the bullets they shoot.

For a serious hunting rifle, choices should NOT be made based primarily on external appearances! Nor should bullets! Some “ugly” looking rifles and bullets do their jobs, not only as well as but sometimes better than the pretty ones… just consider “Ole Ugly” in Phil Shoemaker’s hands! Despite the well worn remark by “whomever” – “No one should have to hunt with an ugly rifle” – beauty IS as beauty DOES, and is in the eye of the beholder!

Function first and fashion second!

But the current analysis concerns a bullet’s functionality in hunting game, not for target shooting or “fun and games”, though those may be legitimate afterthoughts. Yet when a bullet and load ARE chosen for a particular hunt, practice De rigueur!

ANALYSIS of a bullet’s overall effectiveness on game and in media, based on:

Appearance and weight if retrieved: I have various collections of such bullets taken mostly from media testing. Still, some have been retrieved from game though most were lost through an exit wound.

<This is a 350gr/.458″ TSX. It was shot into and passed through 15.5 inches of very tough test media: hard cover books, dry glossy magazines and two 1.5″ planks. It was lost for about a year until finally found in using a metal dectector. From the evidence done to the two boxes of books and magazines, plus the wood, it tumbled in hitting the edge of one of the planks and then burried itself in the ground. One of these was used on a young black bear and never expanded. The bear ran in a semi-circle (covering about 70 yards) ending up around 40 yards behind the bait. The bear was hit frontally and the exit was in the flank next to the right hip. So it’s a tough bullet that needs high velocity at impact in a large-tough animal for expansion. It could replace a 500gr/.458″ that has a round nose with lead exposed.

How do I know that? Or believe that? This next pic is of an identical 350gr TSX fired from the same Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT at 2470 fps into the same media on the same day, but was stopped against the last panel of the last box:

< It’s the bullet on the right. It expanded to 1″ (nearly losing one petal) and retained 100% of initial weight after penetrating the full 15.5″ of the very same tough media. The one in the middle was a 350gr Hornady .458″ that lost its lead core and stopped at 4.5″ penetration. On the far left was a 500gr Speer African Grand Slam that made it to 6.5 inches of penetration, lost it’s front core and retained 310grs of it’s 500gr initial weight. The 350 TSX out-penetrated the 500gr Speer AGS by 9 inches retaining 40 more grains of weight! So why do I think that a 350gr TSX might be a better deal than a 500gr Speer AGS on some African DG?

Then, I’ve heard from a fellow Canadian who did a cull hunt of Australian buffalo using the 350gr TSX as one of three bullets (the others: 450gr AF and 420gr CEB) and he said it worked better than the CEB at distance and as good as the 450 AF at the longer ranges (the AF was better close up).

< And one from this box passed completely through the same boxes of media leaving an imprint on a ledge behind. It too was fired from the same rifle at ~1800 fps at 5 yards from the first box. The bullet was never found.

Over the years I’ve tested many .458″ bullets from my .45-70s and two .458 Win Mags: <Starting at the 12 o’clock position, then clockwise: 500 Hor, 405 Rem, 500 Hor from a wooden box of mud, gravel and rocks, 400gr Colorado Custom, same (Colorado Custom became owner of Barnes and later sold back to Barnes), 400 Hawk, 400 X-Bullet, 400 CC, 400 Speer (90.5% retension from bear), 405 Rem and 405 Rem. Not all from the same media, though some were from the same tests. When we know the test medium, the bullets MV and range we can make some legitimate assessments.

Pass throughs: If the animal died from a single shot, or several, the distance it ran, where hit and range, damage externally and internally all contribute to a proper evaluation of the bullet and its effect at a particular impact velocity.

< The rifle is a NEF .45-70. The bullet was a hardcast 465gr leaving the muzzle at 1900 fps. Range was 70 yards and the bear was facing me in a tree stand. The shot was placed under its chin and came out below the sternum. The heart was not found as it apparently exploaded and was lost in the mass of blood and fibre when field dressed, which it had been in this photo.

That bullet was one of these>

Structure and profile:

< This bullet was retrived from a large Yukon grizzly by “Ted in the Yukon”. It was a 270gr custom bonded core that shows perfect expansion to nearly 1″, retaining 90+% of its unfired weight. It was fired from one of his 9.3 x 62 Mausers. Being ideal in structure and profile, it did the job perfectly at relatively short range of less than 100 yards. Of course, it would have worked much farther away with it’s sleek BT profile. Not sure why one of the American companies wouldn’t produce such a bullet, though the 250gr AccuBond by Nosler comes close.

<Ted and his grizzly.

<My black bear shot with the 250gr AccuBond at 85 yards. It was a pass-through from near the spine at mid-body to exit low between chest and left front leg. Blood loss was massive. The 6′ bear went 20 yards.

<250gr AccuBonds in 9.3 cal.

Caliber: isn’t the cartridge, though many confuse the two. The .30-30 is a .308 caliber and so is a .300 RUM! But there are great differences in the cartridges and consequent ballistics! But to make no distinctions between a .30-30 and even a .308 Winchester reveals gross ignorance of their distinctiveness and consequental broad usefulness. Yes, either will kill deer but sizes, ranges and other conditions come into play in deer hunting in North America and the world. I see few .30-30s in the deer woods these days, but lots of .308s.

The same for other calibers that may have the same nomiclature: the .375 Winchester vs the .375 H&H. They have the same caliber but NOT the same cartridge with a vast distinction of their potential ballistics in range and effectiveness. The .375 H&H is capable of shooting a 300gr at +2500 fps, whereas the .375 Winchester can shoot a 220gr (made especially for the .375 Win) at 2200 fps tops from a 20″ barrel. They are the same in caliber but NOT in ballistics.

And a .45-70 cannot equal the ballistics from a .458 Win Mag though given every option available. At the same psi and barrel length, it will fall short by up to 200 fps for lighter bullets and 150 fps for the heavies. How do I know? From experience. Does it matter? That depends on conditions: the bullet, angles and range, plus a few other matters like repeaters vs single-shots. Single-shot rifles (in each) have some disadvantages but also some advantages, such as less restrictions in COL.

<Some loads for my former Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. They were equal to “standard loads” from a 22″, .458 Win Mag.

Questions:

1) Is a mono metal bullet “better than” one with lead inside a thick copper or gilding metal jacket? “Better than” is somewhat ambiguous! What’s intended by it is often meant, “What bullet structure is best from a particular cartridge in a hunt for a certain game animal under diverse or particular conditions?” The deer species can vary greatly in size from a small ninety pounder to a mammoth Moose of over fourteen hundred lbs. Honestly, a mono metal bullet like a TSX isn’t needed for whitetails, but they might be a very good (not necessarily “best”) choice for the moose kind. There are lots of premium and “super premium” bullets available today that have duel cores of lead separated by a barrier that’s part of the jacket, then others with bonded lead cores to their jacket material, with or without the dividing wall. Nosler Partitions and Swift A-Frames come to mind – both are excellent.

2) What profile nose works best, a flat tip or a pointed one? That’s an apples to oranges type of comparison. Both work best for their intended purposes. Depending on the structure of the bullets, a FT (meplat) works best for close ranges where velocity loss isn’t a big deal. And if there’s intended expansion of the bullet, it’s usually fast and wide. Ideally, the structure should keep the core within the jacket, and in such cases the wound cavity is often greater than a so-called “controlled” expanding bullet with a sharp-pointed nose made especially for long-range shooting. Also, a 60% meplat (60% tip of the bullet diameter) “solid” works best on pachyderms – other matters as they should be. Much more could be added, of course.

3) Does a large cartridge/caliber work better on large and/or dangerous game – if so why? There’s little doubt that improvements in bullets’ structures have reduced the magnitude of those distinctions, or reduced the need for large calibers in particular types of hunting and for certain species, but to assume that large bores (Big Bores) are outdated would be a mistake in my view, for the following reasons:

a) The great improvements in bullets extends to Big Bores as well as for those for use on small and medium size game. That means that a much lighter big-bore bullet can be as effective as traditional heavies – as I’ve pointed out – a mono metal 400gr (404gr Hammer) can now replace a 450 or 500gr soft point. Plus, with it’s higher MV, the effective range might be extended somewhat, depending on the BC of each, structure and profile.

b) The volume of the permanent wound cavity is still the major factor in termination of life that isn’t a CNS hit.

c) All things more-or-less equal, a larger diameter bullet will produce a larger wound cavity with more and quicker blood loss that causes bodily functions to cease. A “larger caliber” infers not incremental increases but a “significant” increase of caliber plus a comparative increase of energy and momentum.

Added to that is the surface area of the larger caliber bullet that transmits friction, heat, energy and resistance to collapse of the wound cavity.

Then the nose profile of any bullet can be a major difference maker. < These are .458 cal. Notice the wide meplat. These are 400s, except the 2nd from left that’s a 405gr Rem. These will flatten big game within hunting range without a CNS hit!

A larger bore will always have the innate ability to disrupt more bone and tissue than a relatively small bore. A train track spike will displace more material in comparison to a 3″ nail! Spikes for train tracks are driven by seven pound mauls (or heavier), or machinery that can create more force still. By comparison, an eight to twelve ounce hammer may be used to drive those 3″ nails! Who, with a few brain cells, would say that the force of the light 1/2 lb hammer is as good as that 7 lb maul in driving train track spikes?

I’ve no time, energy, or finding any sense in argueing this further! It’s futile with those who shoot ten deer each year… almost any cartridge can work on deer of less than 200 lbs, in getting close enough to place the bullet in its most vunerable spots – the heart or brain – and they may still run for 1/4 mile! Around here deer like that are lost unless there’s a dog handy and capable of tracking them.

Yesterday, after several days of rain, I found plenty of fresh whitetail tracks, and by their sizes they were well over 200 lbs. One set that keeps appearing in that area would suggest a buck of at least 400 lbs. If I decided to hunt that area in November, I’d not be toting anything less than my .35 Whelen.

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

.264 Calibers

That’s a little bit more than .257″ and a little bit less than .277″, not quite in the middle but I think we might be splitting hairs if we thought it’s the “best” of the three.

And oh, it’s now monikered “6.5” because that seems to give it more cache! And since 7mm is .284 – caliber, is it now deemed “not cool”?

Whatever the convoluted thinking of “the masses” might contemporarily be, I’d choose a .284-caliber any day over a .264″! Why?… the death moans from the .264 Win Mag while the BIG 7 Rem flourished! Last count, I’ve owned 7 of the 7s and two 6.5s, both Swedes. And today, if I chose one or the other of those two, it would be another 7 (.284-cal). Why? A wider choice of bullets that are “wider”. So now we have some .264s that, more or less, are comparable with the “ancient” 6.5 x 55 and .264 Win Mag! My goodness! What will “they” think of next?

But these are blogs about BIG BORES, right? Yeah, but I just can’t dismiss hammering those wannabe “do-it-all” kid’s stuff as pretenders to the “What Crown”? It’s now the “In Thing” that soon will be the “Out Thing” by those who are looking for the “Next Thing”!

At one time (a long time ago) I thought the .264 Win Mag might do something for me – except I didn’t live in The West, and had no expectations of doing so in the near future. Analysis was convincing enough to choose Winchester’s other invention of 1958, the .338 Winchester Magnum that made a lot more sense to me for where I hunted and what. It appeared to be much more versatile – and that view of Mediums hasn’t altered with added years.

< That’s a .264, 140gr Partition on the far left. The others are all .338-cal. L to R: 275gr Speer, 250gr Sierra, 210gr Partition, 250gr Partition, 250gr Speer GS, 250gr Hornady and 225gr Hornady.

The .264 Win Mag had a major flaw, and that was no ideal powders for the ratio of bore to chamber dimensions. Today, the situation has in theory improved, but “everyone” is choosing 125gr to 147gr projectiles for their .264s/6.5s, (to get that “flat-shooting”, high velocity “magic”) whereas the Swedes mostly used 157s and 160s at modest velocity, and got closer where the high SD bullet would penetrate forever! And I bought the “modern line” about the 6.5 Swede until it failed miserably in using a 120gr at 2900 fps on a big “woods” whitetail buck! But I never gave up on .284s in which I used “heavy for caliber” projectiles – 162s to 175s. A 175gr Partition at 3000 fps is even better at long range than a .300 Win Mag firing a 180 at 3000 fps because of a better SD and subsequent BC. Of course, some .300 Win Mags (26″) can easily make 3150 fps. And a .300 Win is “best” firing aerodynamic 200s at 3000 fps, like the Partition or AccuBond – being the cartridge and bullets among my alltime favorites. But that’s not for the “kids” that wimper and whine at recoil over 20 ft-lbs! But it’s one of the best for 1000 yard shooting.

In giving an example of the potential distinct effects of two bullets of similar construction, SD, BC and MV, the results at 100 to 600 yards could be expressed in kinetic energy and/or momentum. While a growing number of shooters/hunters deny any significance in the final effect of those distinctions, yet they physically exist in both contact with an animal and consequent disruption of flesh and bone (if bone is hit in the process). To disregard that KE is a factor in the wounding or killing process would be a denial of certain aspects of physics – at least based on my observations. How would I otherwise understand the complete obliteration of a “trophy class” bear’s heart when field dressed, or tough test media (hard-covered books and dry glossy magazines) turning to confetti inside a container box when hit by heavy .458 projectiles at modest velocities. Or, a 500gr/.458 Hornady “exploding” inside a test box of media, flipping it upside down, then doing a disappearing act- no fragments, no pieces! Or, a 300gr/.375 hitting a Cape buff frontally in the heart. Later, Capstick holding the heart in his hands with a 3-inch hole through it – a .375″ expanding to that diameter?!

Another part of the physics process is momentum – the conservation of energy. Some place more emphasis on this than on KE (which I do), while still others see momentum (mass x velocity) as the main factor combined with bullet caliber – sometimes caliber by itself with a particular meplat (nose shape), at others the expanded “mushroom”.

<A 286gr/9.3mm Partition taken from a black bear. It tumbled but penetration was from frontal chest to the rightside flank just in front of the hip where it was recovered in skinning. It retained 211 grains/ 74%. MV was +2620 fps with impact velocity at ~ 2485 fps/3923 ft-lbs. Should an attempt to place a value on any of that be meaningful… or just say, “It killed the bear”?

All that said as a basis to a comparison of two Winchester cartridges introduced the same year and based on the same parent cartridge. Of course, I’m referring to the .264 Winchester Magnum and the .338 Winchester Magnum. The one being created for potentially long range shooting of mule deer, pronghorn, whitetails and elk in the western parts of the USA. The other for the larger Alaskan game such as brown bears, grizzly and moose which are normally not shot at long range. Yet the .264 is certainly capable, and appropriate, of taking game from coyote to moose at closer ranges, as well as the .338 being equally capable of long range shooting of game to adult bull moose size.

Yet, to start an argument that Winchester’s planners and design engineers were badly mistaken in the perceived need for a larger caliber (based on the same case) for the massive and potentially more dangerous game represented in Alaska would be a foolish and unprofitable contention. If the .264 Win Mag was “The Answer” for any and all hunting, despite some unforseen hurdles, the .338 Win Mag would have experienced its demise in the first few years of its existence! Instead, not only has it survived but trying to improve on it has never been a grand success. The .338 Win Mag is better than ever and still the favorite among those who choose .338 caliber cartridges. And I consider it to be an unwise tactic to assume that’s because everyone who has one is “just because” others have chosen it. That kind of thing happens, of course, but it’s ill advised to think we know the motives of all concerned. The truth is that the .338 Win Mag has, for the past 64 years, been far-and-away more popular than it’s sibling – a 6.5! And it appears to be growing in popularity if the number of bullets in .338″ is any indication… Yes, I know there are newer and “other” .338s. The .338-06 was “supposed” to be “The Answer”, but how is it doing these days? It was the “hoopla” for how long?

Back to the .264s (6.5s): If there’s any practical advantage over .284 or .308, I fail to see it. Even from a small cartridge like the .308 Winchester, 2900 fps – 3000 fps from a 150gr is possible today using the best bullets and powders from a 26″ barrel. Then there’s the possibility of using 165s, 180s and 200s, all having excellent BCs, and some designed especially for long range shooting like a 174gr.

That’s to help us get some ballistic balance back into a reality check of 6.5s. They are .26-caliber, and that’s it! With all the hoopla over sleek-modern .264″ bullets, let’s keep in mind that great improvements in “sleekness” have been given to .277, .284, .308, and .338 as well! In fact, all the AccuBonds by Nosler have high BCs, and if I lived in an area where a 6-point Elk could be taken to 600 yards, any of those mentioned with modern loads could do so, assuming I was well prepared and equipped, as well as the environment, plus cooperation from the elk. The average 6-point elk weighs what? 600 – 700 lbs? Depending on the angle of the beast, anything from broadside to a sharp angle away could mean penetration from a few inches to several feet to reach vitals – which places very unequal demands on the same .264″ bullet from the same rifle and load.

<This target was shot at 100 yards by my CZ 455 in .22 LR. The large ragged hole near center was made by three shots from my .458 Winchester Magnum at 50 yards. This was done purposely for contrast. Is anyone foolish enough to suggest from a physical standpoint, or even believe, that there would be little distinction in effect from the two cartridges on a large game animal? Yes, I’m aware of the native girl who killed a record book grizzle using her single-shot .22 LR in a side shot to the brain… but how many have gone to Alaska in pursuit of the big bears armed with a .22 LR? And how many resident hunters have a .22 LR as their main firearm? I very much doubt it’s only because a BIG BORE looks more impressive.

The point is obvious, I think, that larger calibers with more “horsepower” are best suited to larger and more dangerous animals. The goal is, or should be, their immediate demise… NOT for target practice!

At this stage of life, any thing up to around 40 ft-lbs recoil isn’t bothersome – but not from prone. That means either my .35 Whelen or 9.3 x 62 is more than sufficient for an elk of 800 lbs, or a moose to 1200 lbs – at 400 yards for the Whelen and 550 yards for the 9.3 x 62, using Nosler ABs in each: 225gr in the Whelen and 250gr in the 9.3 x 62 Mauser.

As it is, the Whelen makes 43TE at 400 yards using the 225 AccuBond, and the 9.3 X 62 is making about the same at 550 yards employing the 250gr AccuBond. Generally, that number would represent an animal of up around1000 lbs with a hit to vitals (not CNS), and with a good bullet like the Partition or AccuBond designed for heavy game. 6.5s don’t come close to those numbers at the same ranges. (TE is terminal effect as measured by a synthesis of a few physical factors, including bullet caliber and weight, plus impact velocity, assuming bullet construction is suitable for the work to be done.

<The expanded bullet on the right is a 300gr TSX fired from my Ruger NO.1 in .45-70 LT (long throat) into very tough media from 10 feet. It was a hunting load with 2650 fps MV. It retained 100% of unfired weight and expanded to .825 inches. It would be a mammoth effort in futility to try and convince me that a .264 Magnum (or 6.5 PRC) could have the same effect (however measured) in shooting a 147gr at 3000 fps into an oncoming big bear at 30 mph from 10 feet when first realized a serious attack was in the making – unless it were a brain shot – which under similar circumstances isn’t going to happen other than by accident! And, for me, that applies to any potentially dangerous beast, including moose and wolf!

At 10 feet the KE is ~4640 ft-lbs and 88TE. And to say that a Mike Tyson punch to my gut whould have no more effect than my punch to his gut makes as much sense as denying the potential effects of the load above vs a 6.5, 140gr at ~3000 fps. That’s claiming that 4640 ft-lbs has no more effect than 2800 ft-lbs, or 88TE is no better than 38TE (Again: TE is a synthesis or combination of bullet weight, impact velocity, sectional density and caliber.).

According to at least one reliable report, several of those 6.5 mm long-sleek bullets with very high BCs have failed on larger and tougher game due to their structure. To have a BC of somewhere near .7 with a weight of 140 + grains, they must use lead inside a relatively thin jacket that gives enough expansion for maxium effect. That also can mean their demise if they hit solid bone. I had one such experience and that was more than enough for me. The bullet was a Nosler SB with a plastic tip hitting the shoulder of a mammouth whitetail buck (at least 400 lbs) at 153 yards. It was fired from my M70 in .30-06 at ~2800 fps (so the book said in pre-Chrony days). The bullet managed to break some bone (some fragments left behind) but not enough to stop that buck from escaping by one bound into thick woods and underbrush. It leaped over deadfalls and piles of brush, went across a swamp and was shot by hunters on the far side of the swamp. After my shot, I saw it bound off the woods trail to be swallowed up in the forrest – which took not more than two seconds! I trailed it to the swamp where only pinpricks of blood were found on it’s escape route. The location of where it was shot revealed some bone fragments and a small pool of blood.

Yet that bullet was PRAISED by western publications! That’s why I switched to it. The previous year I’d shot a very good buck from the same blind on the same trail – at 65 yards – using the 165gr Sierra BT at about the same MV. That buck went down on the spot, got back up and hobbled into the brush ten yards where I found it as though it were sleeping. I gave it a finisher. That BT Sierra hit the buck just after it saw me and started to turn away. Impact velocity would have been ~2700 fps, hitting the gut, went through to the offside hip joint, changed direction almost 90* and came out in pieces at the knee joint! It was one tough bullet! But it got little attention from the press!

Shortly after, I bought my first Chrony and started to do my own bullet testing in media. That was the beginning of revelations… that I now trust… in comparison with other bullets of the same caliber in the same media.

But one bullet “failure”, after pondering the cause, or probable causes, turns me away from ever using that bullet again under similar conditions.

So the long and the short of it is that I became an avid believer in larger calibers for bigger game in tough places. That’s where any animal’s habitat was mostly thick brush and forrest, ravines, lakes, rugged ridges, marshes and bogs – anywhere that a bullet could easily be deflected or break up on a sapling, branch or other unseen objects – and the animal to escape and never to be found in a myriad of places that humans rarely know exist. The fact is a slight deflection can quickly and easily cause a projectile to hit in the wrong place and the animal be lost. A few hard-earned lessons have taught that a .358 Winchester/.356 Winchester would likely have been a better choice using 220gr to 250gr under such conditions than a .30-06 using anything less than a well built 200gr or 220gr.<If we followed the illogical beliefs of those who say: “It’s not what you hit ’em with, but where you hit ’em that matters”; or others, such as: “use a good bullet and put it in the right place”. Without qualifications as to “where you hit ’em” and “a good bullet in the right place”, an unthinking and unexperienced hunter might possibly think of using the tiny .22 LR solid above and shoot it into the shoulder of a lion, buffalo or Brown Bear – but NOBODY with sanity and a modicum of knowledge attempts such stunts! The other above cartridge is a .45-70 load for my former Ruger No.1 LT. That’s a 400gr SP. I’d never use that bullet on any of the DG mentioned, but a good 400gr, like the 404gr Hammer, could be more than adequate from that Ruger No.1 with an MV up to 2400 fps.

Our situation in Ontario would be more akin to Michigan and hunting experiences there, both in species and physical conditions. Rarely is a flat-shooting, long range rifle-cartridge needed, except, as pointed out numerous times, in the far north of our province with its multiple lakes, streams, bogs and clearcuts. In a moose hunt of Northern Ontario a .300 magnum makes a lot of sense as a starting point. As previously mentioned, my friend “Jim” finally discovered, after trial and error, that a .338 Win Mag was just about perfect- and that was after starting out with a .270 Win, then a 7 Rem Mag. I’d recommended a .338 Win Mag to him when he was at the .270 stage pronouncing it “good enough for any moose”. Yeah, it took a few years, but after having lost a couple of bulls to his “good enough for any moose” .270, he began to think otherwise – but failure is often the first step to success! The first year of using the .338 Win Mag, he cleanly took a bull a bit shy of 300 yards, and the following year another at ~ 400! He shared those experiences with me the following summer in getting himself and the .338 ready for the upcoming fall moose hunt.

And that’s exactly my experience with smaller calibers and their frangible bullets on our big game in their particular ecosystems. Where Jim and friends hunted annually, moose often travelled across a marsh from one point of timbered land to another. Distances from their stands to where a moose was crossing could be anything up to 600+ yards!

Twenty years or so ago, BIG BORES was the rage! Hornady was the main supplier of bullets for the .404, .405, .416s, 450/400, 450 NE, .45-70, .458 Win and Lott, 470 NE, .505 Gibbs, and 500 NE.

“Everyone” had to have one or another! And along with some dusty ones in closets, Ruger took up the challenge of producing some new versions of the same themes as well as creations of their own like the .375 and .416 Rugers. Then some custom shops were also overloaded with orders!<That was around the time that I purchased this CZ 550 in the .458 Winchester Magnum. You’d be hard pressed to find one new like it today. In fact, finding factory ammo for it today would be a fruitless endeavor from most shops in Canada. Back order only! However, being a handloader, I was prepared. Now I have more than enough in powder, bullets, primers and cases.

Today, “everyone” and his uncle, aunt, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister, brother, and anyone he knows “has to have” a 6.5 to be cool! And it’s all justifiable, “just because”!

Now… to be “cool” with it, I think the ballistics of the .264 Winchester (6.5) has a place, a niche, that it always had… nothing more, nothing less. But nothing more than Two-Eighty-Four (7mm) and just a bit less.

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL