Visual Impressions of Bullets – P1

I’ve recently written that one of the ways we can evaluate the appropriateness of a bullet for a specific hunt is by its visual appearance. That combined with it’s known structure, and side by side with others that could be used for the same hunt, will give an impression that’s not completely wrong, and should be incorporated into any assessment.

A lineup is presented here that, with a description of each, could inform us as to their suitability for certain classes of big game at particular ranges. They go from 7mm (.284-cal) and .308-cal for general BG hunting to a couple of medium bores in 9.3mm (.366 – cal), and on to large bores in .458-cal. These are presented as examples of how analysis in part could take place before going afield. This is NOT to be interpreted as the only or main source of any evaluation, but as a part of that assessment, and perhaps a significant one.

As an example of an aspect of that analysis, do we think that the BC of Nosler Partitions stacked in a rifle magazine will remain in tact as advertised after one has been fired from a BG rifle? That’s assumed by Nosler and writers in both ads and articles found in outdoor magazines, and in promotional videos. In truth, however, the BC of those remaining in the magazine will have had their BCs altered by uncertain degrees due to a flattening effect caused by recoil as the front wall of the clip or magazine slams into their tips! The amount of that flattening will depend on the speed of recoil, which is magnified in magnums unless rifle weight is impractical for field use.

But by how much, is the question. In comparing the “regular” Nosler 180gr Partition in .30-cal with their “Protected Point” in BC will inform us that a given .474 for the “Spitzer” (pointed one) and .361 for the more blunt “Protected Point” does affect BC. So when the point of the “spitzer” is damaged to a certain degree in the magazine under recoil, what difference would that make at 350 yards with the MV at 3100 fps? Of course, there’s no way of knowing apart from testing the undamaged spitzer alongside a damaged one. But the Nosler 180gr Spitzer would be going 2450 fps with 2400 ft-lbs of KE at 350 yards in the ambient conditions of my hunting area by mid-fall, and the 180gr “Protected Point” would be going 2285 fps and 2050 ft-lbs at 350 yards.That’s a loss of 185 fps and 350 ft-lbs in replacing the “Spitzer” with the “Protected Point”! And the trajectory is also negatively affected somewhat, but perhaps not enough to make a big difference on a BG animal. But, certainly, a loss of 350 ft-lbs could, under certain particulars, sway the outcome!

But could that “Spitzer” actually be reduced in BC in the magazine under recoil to a “Protected Point” in BC? Perhaps not, but it still should be a consideration. I know from experience that the 286gr NPs that remained in the clip magazine of my 9.3 x 62 didn’t appear nearly as “pointed” after firing one shot (one shot and done) into a black bear! In fact, I decided NOT to use them in hunting again because of uncertainty of where they might hit at long range. Later on I did fire most at 100 yards at the range and was unimpressed with their accuracy! Previously they shot into sub-moa! In a later hunt I went with the 250gr AccuBond with the white plastic tips, and it appeared they worked at least equally well as the Partitions, and perhaps even better! So visual impressions do matter along with knowledge of the bullet’s structure. I still have over a full box of the 286gr NPs and they will not remain “forever” in their boxes! But nearly a full box of the 250gr AccuBonds will give assurance of consistent results downrange. I find it more than interesting that most bullet companies are going, or have gone over to PPs (protected points) for lead filled jacketed softs, or hollow points for monolithic expanding bullets (some with plastic tips). No doubt that’s the future for all manufactured bullets to avoid damaging the tips that can spoil long range shooting of game or targets. At relatively short ranges, BC numbers have limited meaning… even a flat point may be a better choice if range is known to be short, as in 100 yards or less.

< This is an interesting lineup of bullets from 7mm to .458″. A few have the older typical pointed lead tips, a couple have Nosler’s sharp pointed white plastic tips, and the rest have “protected points” or hollow cavities. (Right click on image for “open in new tab”; left click on that and then left click on “new tab” for a larger image.)

Apart from knowledge based on experience, what could we possibly learn from a visual inspection in combination with information on structure?

From left to right: a 175gr 7mm Partition; 165gr Partition in .308″; 200gr Nosler AccuBond (bonded core) in .308″; 250gr AccuBond (bonded core) in 9.3mm (.366″); 286gr Partition in 9.3mm; 286gr Partition in 9.3mm with damaged lead point; 286gr Hornady in 9.3mm with a protected tip; 320gr Woodleigh in 9.3mm with a protected point and bonded core; 400gr Barnes X-Bullet in .458″ all copper with hollow cavity; 450gr Swift A-Frame in .458″ with a semi-protected tip, bonded front core with a partition separating it from a rear core; 450gr Barnes X-Bullet all copper with hollow cavity in .458″; 450gr Barnes TSX all copper with hollow cavity (larger cavity than the original 450gr X-Bullet) in .458″; and a 480gr Hornady DGX with a thin copper “layer” (for protection of the rifling) over a thick steel jacket that holds a “hardened” lead core. The tip is flat and 1/4″ wide with lead exposed. The one pictured isn’t bonded though later editions of the same bullet has a bonded core.

Some information and data: Knowledge of sectional densities (SD) and ballistic coefficients (BC) of each bullet would also be helpful, and they are listed in handloading manuals.

175gr, 7mm (SD = .310, BC = .519). I’ve used that bullet in two 7mm magnums, a Ruger #1 with a 26″ barrel in 7 Rem Mag, and also in my 7mm Wby Mag Rem 700 bolt action with a 24″ barrel. It shot very well in each at about 3000 fps. From the 7mm Weatherby Mag I killed a black bear at 65 yards with a single shot. The bear was not large and the bullet went completely through from a hit between neck and right shoulder while making exit in offside flank in front of the hip. I had no doubts of the outcome though the bear raised its head once. I’d gladly use the same load on an adult moose to 350 yards depending on physical conditions, size of moose and angle of shot. Bullet velocity at 350 yards should be about 2415 fps, or 2266 ft-lbs. My original TE formula (forget the “reworked” one) grants a maximum of 1106 lbs, which I think is a good enough guide.

165gr, .308″ (SD = .248, BC = .410). From a recent review of past handloads, I discovered I’d fired a lot of these from .300 magnums, but never killed any game with one. For some inexplicable reason, I never got the accuracy from them (or any 165s) as 180s, so 180s and 190s became the go-to bullets for my 300 magnums at around 3000 to 3200 fps. In contrast, 165s became my favorites from .30-06’s.

200gr, .308″ (SD = .301, BC = .588). This is a bonded core, very sleek bullet with a plastic tip to enhance the BC number and aid in expansion at long ranges. If my experience with the 250gr, 9.3mm AccuBond means anything in regard to this 200gr in .308″, I’d say it’s a super bullet for .308 calibers, starting at .30-06 speeds. If you do a ballistic profile for a magnum .300 starting at around 3000 fps, you’d be very impressed with results at 500 yards! I was, so a box was bought for my young “Big Ben” friend’s .300 Win Mag as well as for my own. The 9.3, 250gr from my 9.3 x 62 at +2700 fps went completely through a good black bear leaving a massive blood trail!

250gr, 9.3mm (.366″) (SD = .267, BC = .493). This has a good reputation on big dangerous grizzly. That’s enough for me, to say nothing about my own limited experience. But it flies fast and flat when started around 2700 fps, all the way to 500 yards for moose size game. I might like to choose the 286 Partition, or even the 320gr Woodleigh, if confronting a Brown Bear at relatively close range, but I wouldn’t back down if all I had loaded were some of these 250gr AccuBonds.

286gr, 9.3mm Partitions (SD = .307, BC = .482). Nosler says the SD is .307, so that’s what I quote here, but despite the math they used, it would be normal to say a 286gr/ .366″ has an SD of .305. A good bullet it is for whatever might be hunted, except the pachyderms that normally require solids. I have two that were retrieved after firing: One from test media and the other from a black bear. Both retained 73% of initial weight at 209 grains from media and 210 grains from the bear. It looks like that could be counted on no matter what it hits (or what hits it!). The mangled looking one went through very tough media about 8 inches and then was “punched” by a 300gr TSX from my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT at an impact of “whatever” after leaving the muzzle at 2650 fps. See the pic of that 300gr TSX after punching the 286gr Nosler Partition and still showing a normal look for expansion! The 300 TSX/.458 cal also did more damage to the media than the 286 NP!

<From left to right: The 286gr NP “punched” by the 300gr TSX on far right. The front end of the 286gr is on the left, and the “punch” is obvious by the dimple on the side. The middle bullet is the 286gr NP retrieved from a bear in skinning. And, of course, the 300gr TSX on far right is obvious. It retained 300 grains! (The wood strip backing was for focusing purposes.)

A great deal has been learned about those bullets from a visual impression and inspection! I’ve mentioned that the 300gr TSX in .458 caliber is one of my favorite bullets for the .458 Win Mag. That assessment came in part from what that bullet did in the very tough media, and what it did to the 286 NP, as well as it’s accuracy from both Rugers #1 in .45-70 LT and .458 Win Mag. From the LT it could make +2700 fps but its accuracy node was 2650 fps. And in the .458 it has gone to 2980 fps with fine accuracy, as well as 2775 fps which is my hunting load for that bullet. In fact, I don’t know of any animal in North America I wouldn’t hunt with that bullet — including a Brown Bear! For caribou or moose at long range it does loose velocity more quickly than heavier TSX’s in .458″ due to a BC of only .234. But at 2980 fps MV it should still expand at 1645 fps (according to Barnes) and 1802 ft-lbs at 400 yards giving a TE of 60.6 (original TE formula which I’ll stick with until something better evolves). That should be good enough for a big old bull moose of about 1200 lbs if hit through the lungs. Recoil from that load in my .458 would be around 45 ft-lbs. In comparison. The 350 TSX at 2780 fps would recoil at about 47 ft-lbs — a modest amount more for a bit more effect at 400 yards. They too are very accurate from my Ruger #1 in .458. And I do have some of the 350 TSXs, but not the 300s on hand- I’ve exhausted my supply in developing, testing and hunting loads from the two #1 Rugers in .45-70 LT and .458 Win Mag.

So a collection of retrieved bullets from both carcasses and media can impress us visually as to their worthiness in hunting activities. So get out there and do some testing for yourself! I hope and intend to do more of that, no doubt shooting more into media than animals. There’s planning and work involved but, hey, anything worthwhile doin’ involves work! Just think… you might become one of those Xperts!

Til the next: Comments on the rest of the lineup from the 286gr Hornady to the 480gr DGX. And that should be on October 9, if God is willing and all goes as planned (St James Epistle ch 4: verses 13 to 17).

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

A Reworked TE Formula

A good deal of research, scratching of the head and (gulp) prayer has enabled me to come up with a modified TE (Terminal Effect) formula that I think satisfies my personal belief that both kinetic energy (KE) and momentum are involved in the killing of game animals, or dangerous game, regardless of size or disposition. And the formula is more straight forward and simpler. It combines KE at impact (whether at 2 yards or 1000 yards) with a momentum factor (MF) that takes into account both sectional density (SD) and the cross-sectional-area (CSA) of the bullet prior to impact. Then the KEI is multiplied by the momentum factor (MF), divided by 100 for approximate game weight (GW) under normal conditions. Thus:

KEI x MF/100 = GW

For example: a 250gr impacts a moose at 2002 fps. KEI is 2002 squared/450400 x 250 = 2225 ft-lbs of KE (at impact). Next operation, in separate brackets, is a basic takeaway from the TKO formula with these simple distinctions: CSA replaces nominal caliber and SD is included, such as: 2002 fps x 250 x .101 (CSA of a .358 cal) x .279 (SD) = 14,103.6/300 = 47 MF.

Then as a stand alone formula: KEI x MF/100 = GW, as in the example below:

2225 ft lbs X 47 MF =104,575/100 = 1045 GW

So, dependant on cartridge used and bullet, 2002 fps will impact the moose at variable ranges. But let’s say the cartridge is a .35 Whelen firing a 250gr NP at a nominal 2600 fps. Bullet impact at 2002 fps (enough for expansion) would be all the way to 338 yards (under average ambient conditions for a moose hunt). Using my computer ballistic program (which allows inputs of temp., humidity and elevation), velocity at 338 yards would be 2002 fps or 2225 ft-lbs. That’s plenty for a big elk or bull moose if hit in the right place with the right bullet.

From this point onward (DV), I’ll be using this model to determine the appropriateness of a particular rifle load for my purposes If I don’t already know, or have some questions.

A further example could be my current “bear load” from the Ruger #1 in .458. How far could it be effective? And what about its trajectory? Since I’ll be “walking it up” in variable physical conditions, a shot could be conceivable at up to 300 yards across the end of a lake with a bear strolling on the other side. At what range would my modest load of about 2100 fps be acceptable for placing a shot into vitals? I have to check that out in using my computer ballistics program with inputs for temp, average humidity and elevation. I’m familiar with the average temps for September, October and November for that area, but still that’s a variable, and so is humidity but neither of those will dramatically affect POI on a bear. I just need to be aware of it. And elevation (which is the most significant factor) I already know. That’s a variable somewhere between 1000 to 1300 ft depending on exact location.

< And the Ruger in .458 needs a workout from time to time, and that’s not at the range! So also its owner!

Current MV of the 405gr Remington = 2085 fps; SD = .276; BC = .281

Zero is now dead on at 100 yards, but I’ll elevate that to about +3″ at 100 yds for information, just in case it’s needed.

Also, I know the bullet is a “killer” even if it doesn’t expand, or I could use the 400gr Barnes Buster in its place that is going a bit faster but has a poorer BC of .242. Whatever the case, the table below is of the 405 Rem at 2085 fps MV.

MV = 2085 fps = 3909 ft-lbs (zero at 170 yards)

50 = 1954 fps= 3433 ft-lbs (120 MF x 3433/100 = 4124 GW) +1.81″

100= 1828 fps = 3006 ft-lbs (112.4 MF x 3006/100 = 3378 GW) +2.92″

150= 1709 fps = 2625 ft-lbs (105 MF x 2625/100 = 2756 GW) +1.43″

200= 1595 fps = 2289 ft-lbs (98 MF x 2289/100 = 2245 GW) – This would be the approximate range limit on bear due to trajectory, but could be longer for larger game. Would the right 400gr/ .458″ bullet at about 1600 fps impact, in the right place, kill a 2200 lb soft-skinned animal? I’m sure it’s been done, especially with something like the Punch bullet. (Traj.-3.04″)

250= 1489 fps = 1993 ft-lbs (91.5 MF x 1993/100 = 1824 GW) -10.93″

300= 1390 fps = 1737 ft-lbs (85.5 MF x 1737/100 = 1485 GW) -22.75″. Is a hardcast 405gr at 1390 fps at impact sufficient for a 1500 lb soft-skinned animal if hit in the right place? There’s no doubt it has been done many times over! But if that were my intent for an eland, for example, I’d not be using the 405gr Remington but a more solidly constructed 400 – 405gr with a flat tip (FT). The point being that a well constructed 400 – 405gr at 1390 fps impact, at whatever the range might be, should be more than adequate for a soft-skinned 1500 lb animal if correctly placed.

My former formula gives about the same results (1737 ft-lbs x .276 (SD) x .165 (CSA) = 79.1 TE x 20 = 1582 GW with a broadside hit in the vitals.

Then there’s an excellent suggested formula by Dr. Ron Berry (“Riflecrank”) on the 24hrcampfire forum at the .458 Winchester Magnum thread.

But whatever I (we) use for estimates, it’s already been done long ago. And that was based on experience that came from trial and error in the use of both soft and solid projectiles.

At the very least, I’m satisfied that the potential ballistics of my “bear load” is plenty for any size bear at any range that practical trajectory permits, and within recoil that’s more than tolerable from my .458 Winchester Magnum. But for “any bear” up to and including grizzly, I’d not be using the .405 Remington due to its structure in hitting a large bone. So even now I’m having doubts about the potential size of a black bruin I could encounter. Over bait is one thing where waiting for a bear to turn broadside is always a possibility, and I’d have no doubts about the 405 Remington, but a surprise encounter with a really big bruin at close range is another. In such a scenario, angle of presentation isn’t an option. Ergo: In a “walking about” or calling scenario from any potential location, no doubt I’ll be loading the 400gr Barnes Buster at it’s current 2100 fps. So again, the selection of a particular projectile (soft or solid) should depend on potential circumstances and the animal pursued.

Because of limited time this year for bear hunting, due to other family activities, I’m not planning for a dedicated baiting season for bear. Instead, it will be scouting for bear, and some calling, in mixed terrain that I’m familiar with. And, as already noted, that could be inclusive of some more open areas where a potential shot could be taken across a meadow, small lake or clearing. A logging operation is currently ongoing in that area so I want to check that out as well. Also, how much assistance I may or may not have from a partner will be involved in taking a particular bear or not, as well as distance from my SUV. But, my main interest is “to get out there” for the adventure in toting my No.1 Ruger in .458 Winchester Magnum! If I just sit at home thinking about it… what good will that do?

With one in the chamber, plus five in a buttstock ammo holder, the rifle, plus the 2-7 x 32mm Nikon scope, weighs 10.6 lbs. With the Mag-na-ports, recoil is about 29 – 30 ft-lbs, and recoil velocity is about 17 fps. By the time bear season is finished at the middle of November, I’ll be within 6 weeks of my 86th birthday, and despite a severe bout of arthritis last winter, I’m not troubled in the least with the prospect of toting a 10.6 lb rifle and 30 ft-lbs of “kick”! But, truth be told… I’m not living from year to year but one day at a time. (See Jesus teaching about worrying over money, possessions and life: Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 6, verses 9 through 34.)

I truly want, whomever you might be, God’s very best for you, both now and on into the future, however that’s to be understood. (St Jame’s Epistle, chapter 1, verse 17: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” NIV)

Til next time which, as mentioned, might not be on schedule due to upcoming extra family activities. But if and when I do “get out there”, I’ll be sure to let you in on the action!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Rifle Bullets – Slow and Heavy or Fast and Light – which is best in hunting?

I’ve just finished reading some wounding studies in the use of bullets. These involved both handguns and rifles used in warfare and in policing. Very interesting, though about the umpteenth time I’ve reviewed such material.

Also, a current September/October issue of Rifle Shooter contains an article by Craig Boddington on “Use Enough Gun”, to quote Ruark. It’s beneficial to have a quick analytical mind, and enough years of experience, to cut to the chase on any article, statement or view on politics, religion or rifle ballistics. In my analysis of Boddington’s piece, with all due respect, I think he “missed the boat” by quite a bit. While he discussed trends in rifles and their ballistics, he failed to come to any firm convictions on what’s “best” for a given situation, but, just like politicians he tried to justify and satisfy one and all in their choices. Maybe that’s not giving him due credit as there is, in my view, too much unnecessary duplication in bullets and cartridges today, not even to mention sameness in rifle offerings! But there obviously is a huge disparity in the cost of rifles that basically do the same things without a justification of why a particular brand of a 7-08 Remington might be offered for $400 while another version of the same brand in 7-08 might be 4x as much! But that’s off topic… mostly.

The title of this piece is reminiscent of another article I wrote a few years ago, also suggested by the title of articles appearing in the 1951 Gun Digest by Roy Weatherby and Elmer Keith.

Of course, “we all know” by now that it’s not wholly one side or the other that’s the final answer, but perhaps some combination of the two. At one time in my hunting history it was “fast” but NOT “light”! Intuitively, I sensed that faster was better than “slower” but not in the use of light bullets per caliber. Though I thought myself a “hunter” as a youngster — certain activities resembling that, such as setting snares for rabbits — I didn’t begin big game (BG) hunting until I had a job and was a married man. That involved a 12ga shotgun and a couple of borrowed BG rifles in which “store bought ammo” was used. Years later, in 1979, I handloaded my first rifle, a German M98 military rifle converted to .30-06. Shortly thereafter came my second .30-06 in a Winchester M70. From the beginning I believed 180 grain projectiles were “normal” weight bullets for the honourable .30-06. They were not lightweights nor heavyweights, though I did play around with some 165s for deer. Then losing a huge whitetail buck to one of those 165s, I switched to 175s in a 7mm Rem Mag BAR, which had a serious fault in the chamber. Not having a reputable “smith” available in that region of Nova Scotia, the BAR was returned to the dealer for a new M70 .300 Win Mag. Again, my choice of projectile was in 180gr. I tried several 180s before venturing above and below that. Shortly thereafter I had the unique opportunity of trading that rifle — even before it was used in hunting — for a beautiful Sako FS in .338 Win Mag, in which bullet weights from 200gr to 275gr were tried in handloads.

< With the exception of the bullet on the far left (a 140gr, 6.5 cal) all are sectioned .338-cal. I did that to understand the physical structure of each which helped in making a call on what bullets were most suitable for bear and moose. In this lineup of .338s are: (left to right) a 275gr Speer, a 250gr Sierra, 210gr NP, 250gr NP, 250gr Speer GS, 250gr Hornady SP, and a 225gr Hornady.

Do you see the trend there? Yes, of course, more power from heavier bullets, not just more speed! In fact, the .30-06s were as fast! The .338 could attain 3000 fps (from the 20″ barrel) in shooting 200gr bullets… And the .30-06 could attain the same speed from 150s from a 22″ tube. So is there any advantage of a 200gr over a 150gr when both leave the muzzle at 3000 fps? That depends on a number of factors, of course: The intended game, and at what range. Though I didn’t choose Nosler Partitions back when I had a .30-06, due to costs and not feeling Partitions were needed, I did after owning the .338. But in comparing a 150gr NP from a .30-06 at 3000 fps MV with a 210gr NP at 3000 fps MV from the .338, what advantage would the .338 have for whitetails? Yup, I agree: None! But as an all-purpose load, the 210gr NP has merit for the largest game of North America with a BC of .400 and SD of .263! Then there are “premium” bullets to 275grs. And a 200gr “ordinary”, non-premium bullet is useful for medium game to as far as we could honestly use it!

So went my thinking! While a 220gr in a .30-06 is useful as a special purpose bullet at relatively close range, a 225gr at 2850 fps from a .338 Win Mag has merit as an all-purpose projectile. With an SD of .281 and BC of .550 for the AccuBond, it meets all qualifications for anything you need or want on this continent at extreme range as well as in your face! And recoil is significantly less than a 250gr or 275gr, which I might choose for big African fauna at closer ranges if it were not the old 275gr Speer sectioned above, but a premium which is available from a couple of sources.

Recoil for a “normal” weight .338 Win Mag (my former Sako) of 8.7 lbs, ready to shoot something with the 225gr AB at 2850 fps, would be about 36 ft-lbs (about on a par with a .300 Win Mag firing a 200gr at 2950 fps) which most can learn to shoot accurately without undue trauma.

The ballistics of a 225gr AB/ .338″ at 2850 fps:

MV = 2850 fps/4058 ft-lbs

100= 2690 fps/ 3614 ft-lbs

200= 2536 fps/ 3212 ft-lbs

300= 2387 fps/ 2845 ft-lbs

400= 2242 fps/ 2512 ft-lbs

500= 2103 fps/ 2209 ft-lbs

600= 1969 fps/ 1936 ft-lbs

Ballistics like this can be intoxicating! You or I might never need it, but what if? One gun one planet!

The natural progression of this line of thinking is “bigger IS better”!

And the natural progression of this line of thinking is .458-caliber IS best because of its overall capabilities and versatility through the use of a score of bullets at various muzzle velocities! While some can handle a relatively “light” .458, and that’s trendy today, I wouldn’t recommend it! 9.5 – 10.5 lbs is about “right” when ready to shoot. And recoil can be dampened or managed in a variety of ways. Then, while not popular with the dedicated “long-range” shooter, a .45-70 is no joke in shooting anything that walks on four legs, and at unbelievable ranges for those who, like myself in earlier years, think speed is the cure-all for any hunt-worthy species!

And the natural progression of that line of thinking is: http://www.bigbores.ca

“Slow and steady wins the race” – but not often, just sometimes in shooting an “in your face” black bear with a .45 ACP!

In warfare, multiple shots from a rifle are often required to bring down or incapacitate an enemy infantry man! That’s not my idea, but statistics. So rather than choosing a .338 Lapua for every soldier, automatic fire from a more portable rifle is used for multiple hits. The .338 Lapua is reserved for sniping at long range. For that reason it was created giving more consistent and better results than a 7.62 NATO or .300 Win Mag.

In designing or suggesting a ballistic formula to that end, there is significant disagreement even among scientists, physicists, ballistic engineers, military officials, police commanders and hunters. Some favor kinetic energy (KE) and others momentum plus caliber as in the TKO formula. Another created by the late John Wootters, called Lethality Index (LI) was similar to mine. So what I’ve tried (about a dozen different combinations trying to intergrate KE with Momentum) has always come somewhat short of my own expectations/desires even with multiple qualifications.

< This 200gr fired Core Lokt from a .35 Remington hit and killed a 300lb class bear at just under 2100 fps. It had a momentum of 200 x 2090 = 418000, and a TKO factor at impact of 21.38. Using the TE formula it would be: 1940 ft-lbs x .223 (SD) x .101 (CSA) =43.7 TE. That’s plenty for a big bull moose at that range if the TE formula is close enough. But if Kinetic Energy (KE) means anything by itself, nearly 2000 ft-lbs ,in the right place with the right bullet, surely would kill a +1000 lb moose — and I suspect the .35 Rem has done in many of the moose population within its range.

The TE (Terminal Effect) formula amounts to mass x velocity at impact, and I’ve known that for some time, but I still feel that KE is a factor, other matters the same as in bullet design, structure, impact velocity and placement. So those matters are assumed; you don’t pit a frangible bullet against a solid, for one point in the discussion.

My intent was to come up with a formula that intergrates KE, momentum and Caliber without any one part cancelling another. Though it appears that any formula that attempts to do so will result in a comparison of momentum effect (ME). As in:

KEI + ME/ 1000 = MTE. The following as a potential example: A 500gr/.458″ at 1431 fps impact = 2273 ft-lbs. A momentum characterisation could look like this: 1431 x 500 x .341 (SD) x .165 (CSA)/300 = 134.

KEI = 1431 x 1431/450400 = 4.55 x 500 =2273 ft-lbs at impact. 2273 x 134 = 304582 which is way too much for easy manageability, but in dividing that by 1000 we have an MTE of 304.6, or call it 305 MTE. That is at an impact range of 200 yards when the 500gr (.300 BC) is started from the muzzle at 1850. I’d consider (after considerable reflection and calculation) that 305 MTE (Mitchell Terminal Effect) to be optimal for a 3000 lb soft-skinned animal. So that works out to MTE x 10 as optimal (good bullet in the right place), and 7.5 X MTE as adequate for a 1/4 on shot into vitals for an approximately 2000 – 2300 lb soft-skinned animal. For soft-skinned DG, I’d use 5. “A good bullet” = the right bullet, and there are many choices from FT solids to monolithic HPs with polycarbonite tips. We DON’T USE thin copper alloy jackets on soft lead cores for animals that can weigh a ton or more!

A 250gr NP with a .473 BC from a .340 Wby at 2960 fps MV, could only attain a 305 MTE at 51 yards impact. At 200 yards (to compare with the 500gr at 1431 fps impact) the 250gr from the .340 Wby has 2588 fps and 3717 ft-lbs at impact. (In promotion of the .340 Wby Mag, Ross Seyfried contended that it was more than adequate for a 3000 lb animal at 300 yards, without qualifications. So my method is conservative by comparison.) At 300 yards, the 250 NP would be arriving at 2413 fps/3102 ft-lbs — based on the ambient conditions previously used. The MTE would be 175.7 ot call it 176 x 10 = 1760, a little more than half of what Seyfried contended! Has anyone had experience in killing a 2000 lb eland at 300 yards using a .340 Wby Mag – one shot and done? If so, I defer to them and will replace 10 with a 17! Yes, I know “It’s where you hit ’em!”

Solids change “the rules”, according to Pondoro Taylor, and a TKO of 40 at the muzzle of a DG rifle is adequate for ALL DG according to him! No range is specified, but it’s assumed it won’t be long! The .375 H&H barely makes the cut of 40 TKO from a 300gr at 2500 fps. But at 300 yards it only makes about 1930 fps from a 300gr NP when started at 2500 fps. That’s a TKO of 38, and an MTE of (2481 ft-lbs x 64.75)= 160.6 x 10 =1606, or a bit less than the .340 Wby. But the worthy .375 H&H can do more than 2500 fps from a 300gr. In truth it can do 2600 to 2700 fps with best handloads and barrels up to 26″. Or, in using the “new” 300gr AB with a terrific BC of .485 compared to the very modest BC of .398 for the 300gr NP. So, yeah, the choice of bullets and best handloads can change the game completely, as in this pic previously presented.

< That’s a 500gr Hornady at a corrected 2210 fps/5422 ft-lbs from my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT.

So again, the 250gr Wby Mag load: KEI x M/1000 = MTE, or: 2588 x (M = 2588 x 250 x .313 x .09/300 = 60.75 Momentum Effect) x 3717 = 225.8, or 226 MTE at 200 yards compared to 305 MTE at 200 yds from the 500gr when started at 1850 fps. That’s an advantage of 35% at 200 yards for the .458-cal when the 500gr bullet is started at 1850 fps, and the 340 Wby (or any .338-cal) starts the 250gr NP at 2960 fps.

That formula is much more complicated than the former TE model, but the comparative results are the same. The reason for that is the constants used for each of dividing by 300 and then 1000 for convenience sake.

This is a ballistic profile of my current bear load from a Ruger #1 in .458 Win Mag. It is to simulate a .45-70 load I used successfully on bear many years ago.

I was told by one gentleman that he thought the (former) TE formula was “great” in that momentum was squared rather than velocity!

Your thoughts?

No, please don’t tell me: “It’s where you hit ’em, not what you hit ’em with!”, or “It’s the bullet, you dummy!”, or…… your take on the wounding studies and research, which covers every possible aspect of this subject. No, not in wet paper but in human flesh and bone. Penetration, cavitation, flat tips expanding and non-expanding, RNs, spitzers, monolithics, cup-and-core, KE and momentum, yes where hit, etc. Nothing is missed, so one might come away with the idea that “shoot the bullet of choice and pray” might be the best answer! While I believe in the only God, and prayer to Him with the right worshipful attitude of humility and faith, I also believe in the physics He has created for the Universe! But, really, how much do we know about the physics of lethal ballistics? I fully expect the debate to continue…

But Boddington did finish his piece with: “Hunters seem to be accepting more recoil to gain performance. I hope that becomes a trend”. And that statement made in reference to long range shooting of big game such as elk and moose.

So do I, because it’s inevitable, that despite improved ballistics from all rifle cartridges due to better powders and bullets, it still requires enough “punch” from a bullet to get the job done when it gets there – and at long (or short) range, a heavier bullet per caliber is better than a lighter one on large game. It will give better penetration, all else equal. Define that as you will… but KE and momentum are both involved, plus a bunch of other stuff such as where the animal is hit and penetration to or through vitals.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Some 300gr to 500gr/.458-cal Bullets Analysed and Compared

< These six are (from L to R): 400gr Barnes Buster; 400gr Speer; 405gr Remington; 402gr A-Frame; 400gr Colorado Custom; and 400gr Hawk. I modified the 402gr A-Frame from a 450gr so I could use it in my 1895 Marlin. Four of them appear in the following photo.

< All of these were tested in a vise at the same pressure. They are, from left to right: 400gr Colorado Custom; 400gr Hawk; 350gr Speer; 400gr Speer; 405gr Remington; 465gr hardcast; 500gr semi-hardcast. All of those are .458-caliber. The two on the far right for comparison are a .338 250gr Speer GS and a 300gr .44 Speer for the .44 Rem Mag.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that the 400gr Speer has been flattened the most – far more than any other including the 300gr/.44 Speer. The 400gr Speer is the 2nd from left in the top pic. According to results from a consistent pressure applied by a vise, it’s estimated that the results from the .458-calibers simulate an impact velocity into soft media (simulating medium size, thin-skinned game) of less than 1700 fps.

In comparison with the pic above of the flattened 400gr Speer, see the following pic of the same bullet retrieved from a trophy black bear at about 1535 fps at impact. It encountered some bone (hence the shearing on one side) but was found in the opposite armpit when skinning. MV was 1865 fps from my 1895 Marlin.

The 400gr Speer obviously worked well enough in killing the bear at that impact velocity, but I wouldn’t push it faster than 1700 to 1900 fps MV in the pursuit of big game.

Below are four photos of .458″ bullets I’ve fired in my .45-70s and/or in .458 Win Mags.

Pics 1 & 2 are of a 600gr Barnes Original on the left to a 300gr Hornady on the right.

Pic 3 shows 300gr TSX’s loaded for my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT at 2650 fps. That was my favorite load for that rifle.

Pic 4 is identified below.

< On the left is a 400gr Barnes Original SP, and on the right is a 450gr Barnes X-Bullet. One soft for deer, etc, and the other tough for moose or even Cape buffalo. The 400 grainers could make 2400 fps, and 2300 fps from the 450gr in my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT.

I know of no caliber (or cartridge for that matter) with such diversity of bullet weights and/or versatility.

< 2198 fps from a 500gr Hornady RN Interloc from my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT. Corrected to MV =2210/ 5422 ft-lbs. This was a max load from the 22″ barrel using H335. My 24″ Ruger #1 in .458 Win Mag makes about 100 fps more using seven grains more of H4895. Pressure? I don’t know for certain in either case, but the .45-70 LT showed less pressure on the Remington .45-70 cases than before the throat was lengthened and bullets seated 0.26″ further out of the case. Previously (before extending the throat) a 500gr Hornady load was lab tested using my former load of 60 grains of AA2015 at 2096 fps from a 24″ test barrel at 63,200 psi (average). After the throat was lengthened, I used 75 grains of H335 at a 3.19″ COL for the 500gr Hornady which gave the above results at less psi (according to the same Remington cases) than the former lab test of 63,200 psi. And their test was at 2.83″ COL that increased both psi and MV in their setup (Accurate) rather than 2.93″ that I was using prior to lengthening the throat. So there are several takeaways from all that: 1) The psi was less in my unmodified #1 Ruger than in their 24″ test barrel that constrained COL to 2.83″, and 2) After modifying the throat making it at least 0.30″ longer (perhaps more), My #1 Ruger in .45-70 LT could handle a COL of 3.19″ for both the Hornady 500gr and 450gr Swift, and somewhat more for the long 400 and 450 X-bullets. Because all bullets were seated to 0.25″, or slightly more, 75 -76 grains of H335 could be used for the above results which showed less stress on the Remington nickel-coated brass than prior to lengthening the throat. What gunsmith would have believed it? At the time, it was in fact a surprise to the head ballistician at Accurate, Bill Falen Jr. who called me with the results, and 63,200 psi was of no concern to him.

< 2305 fps from a 450gr Swift A-Frame from my former Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT. Corrected to MV = 2317 fps/ 5364 ft-lbs.

In general, however, if I had to, or wanted to choose one bullet weight (not just one bullet in that weight, however) for either the .45-70 or .458 Winchester Magnum it would be in 400 grains, give or take 5. Why? Just because nothing more is needed for anything with four legs, and nothing less is its equal given adequate construction in each.

I recently had agreed with a fellow shooter on the 24hr campfire forum, .458 Win Mag thread, that a 400gr flat-tip solid and a 400gr expanding monolithic bullet is all one really needs for a .45-70 or .458 Win Mag. Sadly, of the six that appear in the first photo at the top, only one qualifies as a solid flat-tip 400gr – that being the 400gr Barnes Buster. Four of the other five are either custom, unavailable or too soft. The 400gr Speer is too soft as an all-purpose 400gr expanding bullet, and it has a poor BC. So what most of us are wanting and hoping for is a 400gr TSX type bullet. I have a mere handful of the original 400gr X-Bullets from Barnes with a .457 BC. A 400gr TSX type cannot match those BC numbers. Hammer Bullets looks promising in 400 grains, but when will they ever be available, especially up here in Canada? In the meantime, I’ll use what I have on hand: the 400gr Busters and 405gr Remingtons. The Remingtons are a very decent bullet for soft-skinned game to moose size if impact on game is kept under 2000 fps (In the photo of those tested in a vise, compare the 405 Remington with the 400gr Speer on its left. That may help you understand why I’ve often written that the 405 Remington is much tougher than the 400gr Speer. Plus the fact that a 405 Rem went completely through a bear from left flank to just behind the right shoulder, dropping it on the spot). The Buster? Well, it will go through just about anything if my results in tough media can be transferred to game, which I think it can. With that flat point it will kill any big game with an impact of 1200 fps or more – pending bullet placement of course.

I’ve sold my 350gr Hornadys and 465gr hardcasts to a long-time friend who purchased one of my reloading journals on the .45-70s many moons ago. Still, I’ve kept the 350gr Speers as they are a proven bullet and I’ve several loaded in my .458 ammo box.

Those I would prefer to have around are more 300gr TSX’s, the 400gr Busters, a hoped for 400gr TSX type and the 480gr DGX.

But, truth be told, at this stage of matters, I have to be more sensitive to the recoil issue, and don’t really need a lot more testing or more bullets. I can do all my hunting activities with what I currently have: 350gr TSX’s, 405gr Remingtons, 400gr Busters, 450gr Swift A-Frames and 480gr DGX’s (I don’t think that bullet needs bonding for anything up to Cape Buffalo – it went completely through the media and never expanded, without bonding!). I also have some 450gr TSX’s that can fly from my Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 Win Mag at 2400 fps, but they’ve yet to be tested in media for expansion purposes. I think they’re a little too much for any hunting I’ll be doing from here on in. Yet, I entertain no doubts they’d be great on a Cape Buffalo!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

“This I declare of the LORD: He alone is my refuge, my place of safety; he is my God, and I am trusting him.” – Psalm 91: verse 2 (New Living Translation. A great Psalm for those who believe in a time of crisis.)

Bullet Testing: Why and How

It was inevitable that this topic should come up again in my blog writing. “How so?”, you might ask. Just because: 1) I want to talk about it again; 2) It needs further clairification in my view; and 3) “New” and “better” bullets are constantly being promoted in outdoor magazines, plus in promotional videos with well-known gun writers using them.

This will be a very short refresher course only. Some time ago I wrote extensively on my results from various tests of .458-caliber projectiles, with photos. This will be a repeat performance with added commentary.

The MEDIA used: I believe it’s obvious that results will be determined in large measure by the test medium employed. I’ve used a natural earth bank background of fine silt, gravel and stones – then dug out the bullet remains. Also, I’ve simulated that in a plywood box of a like mix. And bullets have been dug out of the the 100 yard berm of natural earth behind the targets, which included thousandths of fragments of bullets mixed with the soil. Then various pieces and types of wood have been used along with a variety of paper medium. Finally, some bullets have been retrieved from the corpses of animals. All have a story to tell.

IMPACT VELOCITY: One should not underestimate this vital factor. The same bullet from the same rifle and load may have a different story to tell at various ranges on the same animal. Promotional material from bullet manufacturers most often want us to believe that regardless of range or impact velocity – within prescribed MVs – their bullet for BG will get the job done if the shooter does his/her part! There’s some truth there, but NOT the whole truth! At diverse ranges there will be distinct impact velocities and momentum, which affects bone and tissue variously, but also, bullet expansion is directly affected as well as retained weight. Then penetration will vary as well as cavitation depending on how bullet structure endures and reacts to assorted pressures and stresses.

“The more it cavitates the less it penetrates” – a quote from somewhere that gives a general principle. But of course, there are exceptions to general principles. Energy is carried by the bullet and is transferred to the medium either in large cavitation or deep penetration, or an expression of both depending on bullet profile and construction. Either way, it should be numerically quantifiable in a comparative context to have intelligent meaning for the shooter or observer. Normally, that is by wound volume. Wound volume is critical, but location is more critical!

So how do we quantify wounding before the fact? Estimation could be done in at least one of the following ways:

1) Kinetic energy (KE) at impact – historically, an accepted method but largely rejected today by experienced hunters and shooters.

2) A compilation of mass X velocity X caliber/7000 = the KO formula, or some variation of that theme.

3) The TE formula = KE at impact (KEI) as a separate function before multiplication with Sectional Density (SD) X cross-sectional area of bullet (CSA) = TE (Terminal Effect) This gives added significance to KE through the introduction of both the sectional density and cross-sectional area of the bullet.

For example: 2000 ft-lbs of KE from a 500gr/.458-cal at impact in a vital area on a game animal. Of course, depending on the BC (ballistic coefficient), MV and range, 2000 ft-lbs (or any other KE number) will be determined. It turns out that the impact velocity of that 500gr/.458″ that produces 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy would be 1342 fps at 248 yards when started at 1850 fps with a BC of .300. (In the region of my hunting, spring or fall.) Remember: MV, B.C. and range will determine that. That can be calculated. You will need a ballistic program available to calculate this. Then multiply (separately from the KE formula) 2000 x .341 (SD) x .165 (CSA of a 500gr/.458 cal) = 112.5 TE.

Here is a comparison with a .30-06 making 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at bullet impact on large game: a .30-cal 200gr (Partition or any other 200gr, .30-cal) will produce the following TE, and range will be determined by MV and BC. In this particular case it’s: 2000 x .301 x .074 = 44.5 TE @ 336 yards when that 200gr Partition is started at 2688 fps (Nosler’s results from a 24″ test barrel) and .481 BC. (In our typical conditions for spring and fall). At the same range (336 yards) the 500gr load above would have a 91.6 TE at 1211 fps and 1628 ft-lbs. 1211 fps from a 500gr has 43% more momentum at impact and about 2x the TE of the 200gr, and 2.23 times greater in CSA! That explains the distinction between the two even though 1850 fps MV for the 500gr is only 80% of the maximum possible from a 24″, .458 Win Mag.

I chose 2000 ft-lbs, an arbitrary number for large game of approximately 1000 lbs because that was recommended in a previous era by a Conservation Officer in a training program for new moose hunters. And 2000 ft-lbs at IMPACT from any BG rifle! Also, around the same time (about 40 years ago) I read an article in a prestigious hunting magazine that said about 2900 ft-lbs from a BG rifle was recommended for brown bear at impact! That was an era when kinetic energy (KE) was king! Since then I’ve learned a few things on my own and through more reading and research – like results of tests by CO’s in Alaska for various cartridges suitable for brown bear. They gave a value for each depending on bullet performance. It turned out, in that particular study, that the .458 Win Mag was number one! Why? Their results were based on KE at impact, weight retention and penetration.

Yet nice pictures of expanded premium bullets at various impact velocities in a magazine add is no guarantee of like performance in game at various ranges due to several variables. An elk hunter with much time and experience under his belt in a variety of conditions already knows that – as one example. There are 400 lb elk and then there are 800 lb elk. They may be the same species but are not the same animal! He or she “experienced” elk hunter already knows they must be prepared for the 800 lb elk at any angle and range! So it is with moose and such other African, Australian or Asian game that may greatly differ in size and circumstance.

ANGLE of Impact: Nearly 100% of professional testing uses calibrated ballistic gel or water. In a highly controlled environment it’s relatively easy to produce perfect “mushrooms”. Bullets entering controlled materials from directly on at 90* will rarely show distortions to the bullet or tumbling. But give the same bullet a 30* to 45* impact angle and let’s see what happens! Add a few heavy bones to that mix and the “rules” fly out the window!

Following are some pics of bullets that were significantly distorted enough to “change the rules”:

1) A 350gr TSX/.458 cal that impacted the test setup at about 2400 fps. It penetrated the hard cover books and dry magazines without expansion until it came in contact with the edge of a 1.75″ softwood plank. It was lost somewhere in the earth background for about a year when found by using a metal detector (see pic). Contrast that with the other 350gr TSX that stopped just inside the last panel of the second box after having cleanly penetrated two 1.75″ softwood planks.

< Left to right: 1)the 350gr TSX that remained inside the second box; 2) a never fired 350gr TSX; 3) the 350gr TSX that was retrieved a year later under soil; 4) a 300gr TSX/.458 fired from the same Ruger No.1 in 45-70 LT at an impact of 2600 fps into a media of books and dry magazines. The force of that 300gr TSX, that only penetrated 8.5″, drove the remaining 10 inches of dry magazines through the back end of the cardboard box, ripping that panel loose, and scattering magazines across the snow behind! The full box of media was also slid about a foot backwards over the snow! In other words, don’t try to catch a 300gr TSX coming your way at over 2600 fps! There’s a great deal more to be learned from bullet testing than kinetic energy and penetration only! A large part of those events involving the 300 TSX was caused by the bullet’s momentum.

2) A 286gr/9.3mm that killed a bear but tumbled in the process and ended up going backwards:

<The “wings” bent forward are proof of that bullet travelling backwards at some point after initial expansion and losing it’s front core. The shot was frontal chest as the bear faced me from about 68 yards. It was in tall, uncut grass with only it’s head and a very short part of it’s neck visible. I aimed just below that for the heart. The bear disappeared at the shot in the tall grass. When I got down from the tree stand and walked to where the bear should have been, it wasn’t there! I did a quick scan of the area and found him dead at the bottom of an embankment about 20 yards away. He was a relatively young bear with little fat, and measured six feet from nose to tail.

The bullet worked at +2600 fps MV and around 2500 fps impact velocity, but should have given better penetration in my view. It fell from the right flank in skinning the bear next morning. The fact that the bullet tumbled was somewhat concerning to me, but it retained 73% of initial weight at 210 grains. So everything isn’t just a neat package according to “the book”.

Unseen OBSTACLES: What happens to bullet “A”, that has “proven” itself multiple times according to promotional material and some “clients”, when it hits, sideswipes or glances off a twig, small branch or other unseen impediment in flight to the target animal? Well, the truth is that almost anything unexpected could happen from not hitting the animal at all, to the bullet hitting where it wasn’t aimed, to a “key-hole” impact, to… you name it! What about shooting through brush? Obviously, we see those results!

The question is: Are some bullets and calibers better at staying on coarse than others? Are heavy bullets better than lighter ones per caliber if hunting in wooded or brushy conditions?

I’ve had a few experiences – and I’m very happy that they were few! But sooner or later it will happen to most hunters who hunt in those conditions. Are there bullets that can “bust brush” and kill the animal behind it? Etc.

All of my hunting over the past sixty-plus years has involved some brush or trees to heavily wooded forests! The one exception is the small game hunting of groundhogs in open pastures. But even then, woodchucks have a habit of digging burrows and travelling from place to place in hedges and tree lines that mark out pastures and property borders. So it’s not always “clear sailing” in the pursuit of those critters!

Despite many articles that have sought to prove that NO bullet or caliber is immune from deflection when the bullet hits, strikes, glances off of some obstacle on it’s path to terminate a game animal, many of us still think that a heavy bullet from a large caliber rifle at relatively high velocity will reach its mark on a relatively large game animal. Why so?

First off, let’s examine some bullets. Are long for caliber bullets inherently less stable? Of course, agreed, a lot depends on MV and rate-of-twist. But it is generally agreed that some of today’s long monos in particular calibers need a faster-than-normal twist ratio to not only maintain stability in flight but most importantly to maintain stability during penetration! I buy that for a number of reasons, not the least being some personal experience as well as the expertise of some others for whom I have high regard. Then too, some professionals who build rifles and/or bullets have made recommendations to the same effect. For instance: Why does a 7-08 Rem need a 1-9.5 twist rate barrel? It’s really quite simple: Someone, somewhere just might decide to use one of those long 175gr beautiful bullets with the sharp nose in their 7-08! And, moreover, since the MV of that bullet will not be “beautiful”, it will struggle to maintain balance even in “thin” air as the velocity drops! But that same 175gr will prove its worth at 3000 fps MV! So: MV, caliber, rate-of twist, bullet weight and length, SD, impact velocity and angle of impact all are players in bullet stability to begin with!

I notice that, according to African YouTube hunting videos, most hunting is in relatively thick veld. And often shots are taken, at the direction of the PH, on animals (sometimes big and dangerous) where and when I’d never take a shot on a game animal! In other words: on animals partially obscured by thick brush or trees! So shooting has to be very precise in firing through a tiny hole through the bush to hit a vital area of the beast! Under such conditions, either you shoot or go home empty! And usually heavy bullets for caliber are loaded.

I once shot a bear using an original 200gr X-Bullet. It was a “trophy” quality bear but the sequence wasn’t pretty! The bear was lost in the darkness and a followup the next day by three of us produced this: pinpricks of blood, a 2″ strip of fur and hide, and many hours of trying to track the bear down, which ended in frustration. On my own, I went back to the scene the following day and discovered a small hardwood sapling about an inch thick had been hit by that bullet and lopped off about fifteen feet before it hit the bear somewhere other than intended. And I’ve good reason to believe that the bullet tumbled in hitting the bear. The rifle cartridge was .35 Whelen, and a 200gr only has a sectional density of .223 for a bullet that was about 1/3rd longer than the Hornady 200gr SP. Barnes doesn’t anymore make a 200gr TSX in .358-cal. I’m convinced that a roundnose Hornady of 250 grains at 2500 to 2600 fps would have served better even if it hit that sapling.

Would a 480gr/.458-cal of suitable construction be a better choice for large and potentially dangerous game in Africa, in the conditions previously discussed, than a well constructed 350gr? The 480 has an SD of .327 and the 350 has an SD of .238. Which would defeat light brush better when started at their “normal” MVs?

Bullets RETRIEVED from game: This has been lightly discussed above with a couple of photos. But there’s little doubt in my mind that, while I like testing in media, bullets retrieved from animals have a story to tell that’s totally unvarnished. Here’s a pic of some North Fork 300gr solids. The one on left from an elephant shot by Bob Fritz using his .375 H&H.

And another taken from a grizzly shot by “Yukoner” Ted in the Yukon using his 9.3 x 62. It’s a 270gr custom from B.C.

And this from my first bear: a 400gr Speer from a Marlin .45-70 at 1865 fps MV and about 1535 fps impact. It retained 90.5% of unfired weight. A “premium”?

And still this from a bear shot by a friend using his .35 Remington and a handloaded 200gr CorLoc:

Full-PENETRATION: The bullet from this bear was not retrieved as it went cleanly through taking out lungs and heart before exiting between chest and left front leg leaving a blood trail that no one could miss! The bullet was a 250gr Accubond from my 9.3 x 62 at 2700 fps MV and impact velocity at about 2540 fps/3580 ft-lbs.

So “bullet testing” results are verified by ALL of the above “witnesses”, and not simply by shooting some into a box of “media” at a fixed distance and MV!

Simply stated: We review and carefully examine ALL verifiable “witnesses”, including our own results, to determine what bullet appears more than adequate, or even best, in consideration of most probable variables, for the proposed BG hunt!

I wouldn’t fuss over bullets for varmints or medium game – almost any of today’s “suitable” bullets will “kill” varmints and small to medium game IF one can “shoot”! “Premiums” are NOT needed — so don’t wast $$$ on what you don’t need!

So also cast bullets will do this and more:

‘Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why the .375 Holland and Holland?

A very good question with many answers. I’ll seek to expound on them a little. One of the ways is to compare it with some others of its class — and I’ll take a crack at that in comparing and contrasting it with my former .340 Wby Mag and my 9.3 x 62. This, of course, isn’t novel as it’s been done before. Yet, it seems that no one is ready to be critical of it in any serious manner. There must be good reasons.

First off, as “everyone” knows, who know anything about historical rifle cartridges of fame, the .375 H&H has an enviable record of killing big-bad-stuff in Africa since 1912! That includes the likes of elephant and Cape buffalo. And it remains one of the top two or three for those chores. In addition, it has a success story of its own on anything else that’s legal in Africa, Asia, Alaska and wherever one may have hunted or wish to do so! Yes, if someone wants to be picky, its trajectory might be wanting for medium to small game at +600 yards or so.

But to quell some “yes buts”, let’s have an honest view of potential ballistics – my best from the following rifle:

Rifle: Browning A-Bolt SS with a 26″ barrel.

Weight with 3 cartridges in the clip magazine, plus a 3 – 9 x 40mm scope and nylon sling = 8.8 lbs.

Bullet: 300gr (Sierra BT or Hornady BT)

Case: Remington

Primer: Federal 215

Powder: 72 grains of RL-15 or IMR4320. (That was a “book” load)

COL = 3.6″

MV = 2715 fps/4910 ft-lbs. (I liked that 300gr Sierra with it’s 0.050″ jacket)

BC @ 1600 fps to 2400 fps = .493 (Yet, the 300gr Nosler AccuBond is currently available and perhaps a better bullet – it has a claimed BC of .485, so we’ll go with that.)

SD = .305 (same as the 286gr Partition in 9.3)

MV= 2715 fps/ 4909 ft-lbs/ 165 TE/ -1.6″

50 = 2626 fps/ 4594 ft-lbs/ 154 TE/ +1.44″

100= 2539 fps/ 4295 ft-lbs/ 144 TE/ +3.21″

150= 2454 fps/ 4012 ft-lbs/ 135 TE/ +3.62″

200= 2371 fps/ 3744 ft-lbs/ 126 TE/ +2.60″

300= 2209 fps/ 3249 ft-lbs/ 109 TE/ -4.20″

350= 2130 fps/ 3021 ft-lbs/ 101 TE/ -10.2″

400= 2053 fps/ 2806 ft-lbs/ 94 TE / -18.2″

450= 1977 fps/ 2604 ft-lbs/ 87 TE / -28.2″

500= 1903 fps/ 2413 ft-lbs/ 81 TE / -40.4″

Looking at those numbers makes me wish that I could have kept that Browning A-Bolt! But it had a critical flaw: The bore was off-center by 8 thousandths! So accuracy was not great, nor even acceptable if I ever wanted to use it at any range beyond 250 yards. So it was returned to the dealer for a like rifle in .338 Win Mag with the intention to rechamber it to a .340 WBY – which happened.

< The .340 Wby Mag that replaced the faulty .375 H&H, but about identical to it in the Browning A-Bolt.

But truth be told, the above figures about match the .340 in KE and significantly surpass it in TE! Also, it’s trajectory, while not quite as good as the .340, betters my 9.3 x 62 by a slight margin as well as a significant margin in TE. As to the .338 Win Mag: As good as it is, it’s not a .375 H&H when each is giving its best.

In comparing apples to apples: I owned and handloaded four Browning A-Bolts SS (LH) with 26″ barrels: a 300 Win Mag, a .338 Win Mag, a .340 Wby Mag (the former .338 Win Mag) and the .375 H&H. All were given their best loads and all performed above expectations in MVs and KEs with exceptional accuracy, except for the .375 H&H (as mentioned). They all had removable clips attached to the floor plates, and were relatively light but handled recoil exceptionally well, including 54 ft-lbs in the .340.

So, except for the flaw in the barrel of the .375 H&H, it would have been the star of the show! I’d have another…

Now, some other rifle in .375 H&H may come short of those ballistics depending on a number of factors, such as barrel length and tightness, and how it’s loaded. But in making other comparisons with other .375s, the Ruger in particular, I see no legitimate reason for more from a .375 than mine had to offer – it was nearly making original .375 Weatherby ballistics. Yes, I know that the Weatherby version – a “blown-out” .375 H&H with the rounded shoulders can make about 2800 fps, and the .375 RUM is advertised by Remington as firing their factory 300gr load at 2700 fps. Likely, that’s plenty for anything, especially in consideration of potential recoil, but we know the RUM .375 can be loaded a lot “hotter” than 2700 fps employing a good 300gr! But this brief analysis is concerning the H&H, not the RUM.

I’ll sum up the analysis this way: Compared to my 9.3 x 62 with it’s 22.44″ barrel, the Browning A-Bolt SS with a 26″ barrel had superior ballistics in that it could shoot the 300gr Hornady BT or Sierra BT at +2700 fps with approximately the same BC as the 286gr Nosler Partition at +2600 fps from my Tikka in 9.3 x 62. That’s about 100 fps faster from a 300gr than my best load from the 286 Partition in my Tikka 9.3 x 62. Recoil would be similar in KE but NOT in “felt recoil”. For some reasons (not fully recognised or understood) the Browning handled recoil from the .375 H&H and .340 WBY somewhat better than the Tikka T3. They were about 1 – lb heavier but the numbers say, with all that taken into account, physical recoil should be about identical between my current 9.3 x 62, 286gr load from the Tikka and the 300gr load from the former Browning in .375 H&H. The .340 firing the 250gr Partition at 3000 fps from the Browning (at 8.8 lbs) should have been 54 ft-lbs (6 ft-lbs more than the Tikka 9.3 x 62 at 7.7 lbs) vs 48 ft-lbs for the Tikka T3. Yet, the “sense” of recoil is considerably more from the Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62 than the Browning A-Bolt in .375 H&H or the Browning A-Bolt converted to .340 Wby Mag.

I think one matter, at least, in the Browning’s favor for managing recoil in both the .375 and .340 was the long actions and barrels that put more weight “up front” – less muzzle “jump”. And another being the stock on the Brownings had more “give” to them – slightly more flex. So recoil appeared less than the numbers would suggest. When I shot the bull moose with the .340, recoil never crossed my mind. But I’d spent many hours with the .340 in developing loads and in practice from a bench. Even in bench shooting, I found both the .375 and .340 well mannered. Never did they intimidate, but my style of “bench” shooting is NOT that of most – even some pros. I hold down on the forearm, pull the rifle buttstock tight to the shoulder, and stay as far back as possible from the scope – and use scopes with long eye-reliefs (as in this photo in shooting the CZ550 in .458 Win Mag). And my cheek isn’t “welded to the stock”! And, I’ve had NO problems in getting the best in accuracy that those rifles and loads could offer! I’m talking sub-MOA in most cases – except the Browning .375 H&H with the flawed barrel. And… I’ve never been hit by any scope in bench shooting or in hunting. Despite what you might believe or have been told, it IS NOT necessary to have the full circle of light and image from the eyepiece in order to center the crosshairs in bench shooting. Back off enough from the scope eyepiece so as NOT to get hit in the brow by a heavy-recoiling rifle. DON’T CRAWL THE STOCK!!!

‘Til the next… “Testing Bullets, Why and How”

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

A Comparison: 9.3 x 62 and .338 Win Mag

I was going to write: “An Unbiased Comparison of the 9.3 x 62 and the .338 Winchester Magnum”, for that is the intent of this piece. But that would have meant a title too-long for a single line.

And the idea of “an unbiased comparison” between the two might raise the eyebrows of some and snickers from a few! Why? Because MOST journalism in recent times has a stamp of “no confidence” due to journalistic prejudices! There is, in reaction to that, a lot of “critical thinking”, so-called, which in itself has the same taints of journalistic prejudice, or political manipulation.

So it is “A Comparison…”, not “An Unbiased Comparison…”, leaving the reader (you) with biases of your own to make a judgement on the fairness of this comparison.

As a basis for this analysis, as often mentioned, I’ve owned a couple of .338s with barrel lengths of 20″ and 26″. In between those two, I assisted my son, Phil, in the development of handloads for his .338 Win Mag in an M700 Remington with a 24″ barrel. Regarding my two rifles: The first was a Sako FS with the 20″ tube. After prolonged trials involving several bullets, primers and powders, I was able to attain a maximum safe load at 2715 fps from the 250gr Sierra BT – with acceptable accuracy. None of the other 250gr bullets tried surpassed the factory claim of 2660 fps from 24″ barrels. Other bullet weights tested included 200s, 225s and the Speer 275gr. Again, as recently stated, I reached a high of 2841 fps from the 250gr Hornady SP from my 26″ Browning A-Bolt SS (LH). That was from a book load of RL-19. My son’s Rem 700 with it’s 24″ barrel gave an easy hunting load of 2735 fps from the 250gr Hornady SP. Due to a time limit for developing a moose load, we settled on that before heading to “The Far North”.

As given in my recent blog on “The .35 Whelen and other Mediums”, I published the ballistics for my 9.3 x 62 in comparison with my .340 Wby load on that moose hunt. The conclusion was that apart from the .340 having a somewhat better trajectory due to the 250 Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps, there would be no advantage in “killing power” between the two all the way to 500 yards. The 9.3 x 62 would have less recoil, less weight and better handling.

< The .340 Wby in the “Far North”.

In a recent search of the website of a prominent outdoor store in our area, looking for how many 9.3 x 62s were being offered, there were several used, but in “good” condition Euro models, ranging in prices from below $400 to up around $700. Then, also a few of recent manufacture by the likes of Sauer with the sky the limit! During that search I also noted several offerings in .338 Win Mag – some of new manufacture, including one having the same name and style as my Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62. Hmmm…, I thought: “It has a 24″ barrel. I wonder how that would have compared to my choice of the same basic rifle with a 1.5″ shorter barrel chambered in 9.3 x 62 instead of .338 Win Mag?” Would I have been better off with the .338 Win Mag? One well-known character on the forums, though a fan of the 9.3 x 62 that he claims to have used extensively in Africa, insists that his .338 Win Mag is better for long-range shooting of elk in the West! Of course, there are elk, and then there are ELK!

So here is my “unbiased” comparison between my TIKKA T3 Lite with a 22.44″ barrel and an honest .338 Win Mag load from a 24″ barrel in a TIKKA T3:

We’ll invite the .338 Win Mag in a TIKKA T3 to shoot its “best” first:

Cartridge: .338 Winchester Magnum

Barrel length = 24 inches

Case: Winchester

Primer: Federal 215

Powder: 71.5 grs H4831

PSI @ 64,000 (?)

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

COL = ? (the same action as mine with a clip allows a maximum of 3.370″; SAAMI = 3.340″)

(*Ballistics are from the Nosler Manual #4 which, based on some personal experience, I think are realistic.)

MV = 2780 fps/ 4290 ft-lbs/ 120 TE

100= 2597 fps/ 3743 ft-lbs/ 105 TE/ +2.93″

200= 2421 fps/ 3254 ft-lbs/ 91 TE/ +2.42″ (Zero @ 250 yds)

300= 2252 fps/ 2816 ft-lbs/ 79 TE/ -4.02″

400= 2090 fps/ 2425 ft-lbs/ 68 TE/ -17.3″

500= 1935 fps/ 2078 ft-lbs/ 58 TE/ -38.6″

Recoil from an 8# rifle ready to hunt = 43 ft-lbs

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The following results are the same as published on July 31, 2021 for the 9.3 x 62:

Rifle: Tikka T3 Lite, 22.44″ barrel

Cartridge: 9.3 x 62mm

Case: Hornady

Primer: WLRM

Powder: RL-17 (70 grs)

MV = 2640 fps/ 4425 ft-lbs/ 142 TE

100 = 2466 fps/ 3861 ft-lbs/ 124 TE/ +3.37″

200 = 2299 fps/ 3355 ft-lbs/ 107 TE/ +2.74″ (Zero at 250 yards)

300 = 2138 fps/ 2902 ft-lbs/ 93 TE/ -4.47″

400 = 1984 fps/ 2499 ft-lbs/ 80 TE/ -19.3″

500 = 1837 fps/ 2143 ft-lbs/ 69 TE/ -43″

Recoil from 7.7 lb rifle = 48 ft-lbs

PSI = approximately 64,000 based on QuickLoad.

(*I’ve published 2631 fps MV from this load in the past, but a new 1 lb can has increased that slightly on average.)

<by seating the 286gr Nosler to a COL of 3.37″ to work smoothly from the clip magazine, I was able to use more RL-17.

While there isn’t enough distinction in kinetic energy to have a serious argument over, yet any advantage in Terminal Effect (TE) is the result of a slight, but significant, increase in KE, a 17% greater cross-section area of the 286gr in .366-caliber over the 250gr in .338-caliber, and 8.6% greater momentum starting out at the muzzle and 8.6% more momentum at 500 yards. In other words, there will be 8.6% more momentum at any range, and 17% greater bullet cross-sectional-area from muzzle to impact. At impact the TE is 19% greater for the 9.3 x 62 than the .338 Win Mag. It all counts for something (though we may not know exactly by how much), not just the KE numbers that slightly favor the 9.3 x 62. The TE (terminal effect) number is the result of a particular formula. If we should use the TKO formula instead, the comparison between the two would be somewhat the same, still favoring the 9.3 x 62. The TE formula gives a 19% edge to the 9.3 x 62, and the TKO gives an 18% edge to the 9.3 x 62.

TKO = Bullet wt. X Velocity X Caliber/7000.

So: 2780 x 250 x .338/7000 = 33.5 TKO @ MV; and 1935 x 250 x .338/7000 = 23.4 TKO @ 500 (for the .338 Win Mag)

So: 2640 x 286 x .366/7000 = 39.5 TKO @ MV; and 1837 x 286 x .366/7000 = 27.5 TKO @ 500 (for the 9.3 x 62)

Both bullets have very good sectional densities at .313 for the 250gr and .305 (Nosler says .307) for the 286gr, so a very slight advantage in SD goes to the .338 cal.

The 9.3 x 62 has a 12% increase in recoil over the heavier .338 ( the TIKKA T3 in .338 Win Mag with a slightly longer barrel will add a few ounces) plus the 9.3 x 62 is using a 14% heavier bullet, but recoil for the 9.3 x 62 can easily be modified by adding more weight or choosing a 250gr. Both of the above loads would have similar recoil effect to a “normal” .375 H&H at 9 lbs firing a 300gr at 2550 to 2600 fps.

There you have some of my reflections on why the Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62 would not be improved on, or replaced, by a similar rifle chambered in .338 Winchester Magnum. They are both very good cartridges that when handloaded can be effective on any BG in North America and most of the world…. Well, you know the 9.3 x 62 was created way back in 1905 by a German gun maker, Otto Bock, for European settlers in East Africa. And it became famous there for cleanly killing anything that needed killin’! And, what more can be said of the very popular .338 Win Mag, an honest descendant of the great .458 Win Mag, which was created for any large and dangerous African fauna, and its offspring being born two years later for any large and dangerous Alaskan fauna!

And, Oh! I almost forgot to mention that I had the option of purchasing a Remington 700 in .338 RUM with a laminated stock and SS 26″ barrel and action for the same price suggested for my Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62! I handled them side by side and the TIKKA went home with me! You see… don’t you, I already knew the ballistics of the .338 RUM since I’d owned and used a .340 WBY for ten years prior to that. Plus the 338 RUM was almost 5-inches longer and nearly 2 lbs heavier!

Til the next… Comparing the .338 Winchester Magnum with the renowned .375 H&H.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

“Even strong young lions sometimes go hungry, but those who trust in the LORD will never lack any good thing.”

Psalm 34: verse 10 (NLT)

The .45-70 as an All-Purpose BG Rifle

BG is short for big game. My purpose in this piece is not to give a history lesson on the .45-70 from its inception (as an official American BP military weapon from 1873) to the several iterations of current BP single-shot rifles in the same chambering. In the simplest of terms, I’m not into BP shooting of anything! I don’t have a single drop of nostalgic blood flowing through my veins.

<My former Ruger No.1 in .45-70 with the long throat (LT). The Nikon 2 – 7 x 32mm scope is now on my Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag – that one on the header.

(For a better view of pics: Right click on image, then left click on “Open image in new tab”. Then left click on the new tab.)

My goal in this piece is to discuss some current (or recent) production rifles for the .45-70 using modern powders, bullets and pressures. As recently mentioned, the title given to my last (and third edition) reloading manual on the .45-70 was: “SUPREME LOADS for the 1895 Marlin, NEF Single Shot, Ruger No.1 and Ruger No.1 IMP”. In the 1895 Marlin, I included loads for the 18.5″ Guide Gun and 1895 Classic (22″). The Ruger No.1 IMP was my second Ruger No.1 in which my gunsmith gave an “improved” throat by lengthening the leade so bullets could be seated longer granting more space for the right powder in shooting long monolithics, or the relatively heavy bullets like the Hornady 500gr and 450gr A-Frame. That worked out very well making that #1 Ruger about equal in ballistics to a 22″, .458 Win Mag. Later, I changed the moniker from “IMP” to “LT” (long throat), as the chamber had never been altered, but the throat only.

That manual contained several pages of loads, giving the CUP for most loads and PSI from lab testing of the initial Ruger #1, 500gr Hornady load. Some were known from other sources but mostly from a downloaded CUP program based largely on the Powley Computer. A few were extrapolated from other loads. On the whole, all were tested in my personal rifles with an eye for excessive pressure.

For well over a decade a rifle chambered for .45-70 Springfield was mostly toted for hunting purposes. That included 1895 Marlins, NEFs and Ruger No.1s. Note that two of those three styles were single-shots.

A supposed advantage of the 1895 Marlins over bolt action rifles was multiple shots available from the shoulder with a quick flick of the hand and wrist. In reality, however, that was the theory for much milder loads than I used. Shooting from my left shoulder, I always lowered the rifle from my shoulder if a second shot was deemed necessary, as in the killing of my first bear. The first shot from 100 yards was all that was needed but I stood on the moose-hunting platform for a finisher with the bear down and out at 85 yards.

Another real advantage of the 1895 Marlins was the ability to replace any fired with one still in the chamber and the hammer cocked with eyes still on the game. While heavier than a .30-30 of the same model, it’s balance and handiness (even with a scope) gave added confidence. As to power, it wasn’t lacking for any BG, including DG, when appropriately handloaded with the right bullets. In a 22″ barrel format, it was fully capable of 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle from 405gr projectiles. Of course, choosing the “right” bullet for a given hunt was important enough to do the necessary research and testing.

The main negatives of the Marlins were its COL restrictions (though most of the four that I’d owned allowed 2.6″ – 2.61″ COL for smooth functioning through the action. I crimped using a LEE crimp die), and stock shape including the hard rubber butt pad (they can easily be replaced with a softer one). While STAR cases with a smaller size cup for primers are available, I never-ever had a problem using “standard” brass.

I’ve owned two single-shots from New England Firearms in .45-70. The first was the best. It had an excellent heavy barrel that was easy to clean using the break-action, but rarely was it dirty enough to need a cleaning. It was also superbly accurate, and allowed longer seating of bullets than the Marlins. It also had an ejector that would send the empty case flying past your ear when opened for loading another cartridge. And the action was strong –stronger than the Marlin, but not as strong as the Ruger #1. I shot a good bear with that rifle from a tree stand at 70 yards and it was a DRT. The load was a 465gr hardcast at 1900 fps/3727 ft-lbs, and about 1735 fps/3108 ft-lbs/ 163 TE at impact. With a few on the stock, that rifle with scope and ammo barely weighed 8 lbs, so the recoil was fast! 57 grains of H335 was the magic and produced those numbers plus 46 ft-lbs recoil. A neighbor, who had some cattle on that property, was digging a water-hole for his herd (I didn’t know he was there), and loudly heard the “wack” of the bullet as it hit the bear… he exclaimed out-loud, “Either he hit a large tree or the bear”. I never picked up that sound as the bullet impact was too close, but he later told me his reaction. The bullet passed through and was lost. That NEF was a powerful and handy rifle, and easy to climb into a tree stand with it in one hand or slung over a shoulder. The second NEF was much different: It had a shorter barrel (though as heavy), the “thumb-hole” stock and an extractor rather than the ejector. I never liked the extractor with the rim of the case protruding only 3/16″ with the action open — especially with gloves on during hunting season. I used it for wolf hunting for one winter after which it “went down the road”. But it too was accurate, powerful and handy. The main load for wolf was the 325gr Hornady FTX at just over 2300 fps. The idea was in choosing a deer bullet with some reach.

< The 325gr load next to a wolf track.

< On the hunt for wolf with the NEF and 325gr load.

The single-shot Rugers have had quite a bit of attention in my blogs — especially the “LT”. I considered it the best rifle I’d ever owned – from the standpoint of looks, versatility, power and handiness.

Good, bad or otherwise, I’ve never been a collector of rifles for the pure reason of having them. Every rifle ever purchased was for at least one of the following reasons, or perhaps (in some cases) for more than a single purpose: Hunting; testing and improving ballistics through handloading; overall function and handiness; and aesthetics – never for boasting, like “I have one of those too”, or “There are over 100 rifles in my gun room”. To me, having 74 firearms in a gun room (the average by respondents to a national survey published in a gun magazine) would be of dubious significance, because no one could ever become familiar with that many firearms in a lifetime unless the majority were duplicates or so similar as to make little to no distinction in purpose or usefulness.

The main point of my blogging over recent times is to demonstrate how versatile any big-game (BG) rifle can be, or become, through handloading. One BG rifle can deliver a lifetime of enjoyment and experience through handloads adapted to most environments and game animals or predators. Agreed. But some BG rifle cartridges are more adaptable (versatile) than others due to usefulness for both ends of the spectrum from small to large — including dangerous game (DG). And, of course, all that depends on available reloading components and the handloader’s savvy.

But, we all like some variety in life and choices, so rarely are we content with the same breakfast every day of the week, month, year or lifetime… unless, of course, we live in a mud hut with twelve other adults and children who hope for some protein sometime during the upcoming weeks or months! And, lest we forget in our getting, facing starvation is still a reality for millions in the 21st century while we quibble over what bullet is just perfect for a trophy bull moose or Cape buffalo. As Jesus reminded the people of his day – and ours – “Giving is better than getting – the rewards are greater because the Father above takes notice of our motives as well as our deeds”. And His Day is not yet, but still it is coming!

After we have experienced (in general terms) most of what the gun world has to offer in real terms, fewer rifles get used in the field – and less handloads for those few. We, then, are more focused on the critter, the bullet and the potential ranges. Recently (a relative term), I’ve been very focused on the development of a good, practical load for black bear in an area I know very well on Crown Land. In the past I’ve used a variety of loads from several rifles that could serve well for whiletails, black bear or even moose. These were all handloaded and employed in the general Crown Land hunting areas. Some smaller numbers, like .223s and a .25-06 were also handloaded and made useful for varmints and small game but not toted for medium and large game.

< The 405gr Remington load on the RIGHT and the 400gr Barnes Buster load on the LEFT.

In searching for and in the development of a good, practical load for black bear on Crown Land, I finally settled on a very accurate .458″, 405gr Remington load that was originally tested early on in my ownership of the Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag – about two years ago in 2019. Basically, I wanted a near duplicate of a 405gr Rem load I’d successfully used from an 1895 Marlin on a black bear at 100 yards back in 2005. That was a “bang-flop” as the bear was moving away from me and took the 405gr Remington in the left flank, completely penetrating the body diagonally and made exit just behind the right front shoulder. MV was over 2100 fps with impact velocity more than 1800 fps. My current bear load for the Ruger No.1 in .458 WIN is the same 405gr Remington at 2085 fps (average corrected to MV) and shoots into sub-MOA. The powder charge is 75 grains of RL-15, WLRM primers and Hornady brass. COL is 3.26″. For anyone who might be interested, I’ve also loaded the same 75 grains of the same powder behind the 400gr Barnes Buster that shoots into the same group as the 405gr Rem. That gives the possibility of a soft followed by a solid, or visa versa. Crimping isn’t necessary for the single-shot Ruger, though I do crimp the 405gr Rem into the bottom cannelure.

< On Monday,August 2, 2021, I was at the range with my son, Phil. My main interest was to spend some time together, but also I wanted to know where the 405gr Rem and 400gr Barnes Buster would hit at 100 yards without having made any adjustments from the previous trial at 50 yards where two of each made a single ragged hole. The bullet hole at the top in this photo is from the 400gr Barnes and just below is that made by the 405 Rem. Using the same charge of powder, the 400 Barnes gave slightly more recoil that would indicate it had a somewhat higher MV. I’ve adjusted the crosshairs right to center those loads.

In reviewing some of my data and notes from the past on various .45-70s, I’ve concluded that 400s/405s are the best weights for overall performance. Though, heavier cast bullets also performed excellently from the Marlins and NEF. A 465gr hardcast was very accurate from both a Classic 1895 Marlin and the Guide Gun at around 1900 fps. From the Marlin Classic (22″), I attained up to 1950 fps with excellent accuracy. The main problem of that load in the Marlin was felt recoil from the lever. The NEF was more comfortable in that regard, though lighter, due to a much better shaped stock. From the NEF I cleanly killed that mentioned trophy quality black bear at an MV of 1900 fps from that 465gr cast bullet at 70 yards. There was no running off for twenty yards or more from either bear. They both were DRT, but the bruin shot using the NEF was somewhat larger.

<The cannelure in this pure copper and lead 400gr Hawk .458″ was made by a LEE Crimp Die

In recent times the .45-70 has even been used to take the Big Five (or Six) of Africa. Well loaded, it is perfect for deer, hogs, all bears, elk and moose on our North American continent. 45-70s may not be the best in wide-open country for today’s shooters dependant on powerful scopes, where shots might exceed 300 yards, but a good load is capable for large game well beyond that if the shooter has practised and become familiar with its trajectory.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .35 Whelen and Other Medium Calibers

While certainly one of the most useful all-around cartridges, yet for obscure reasons it remains “the ugly step-sister” to the .338s which currently seems the darling of the mid-bores. But it was not always so.

In Auckley’s HANDBOOK FOR SHOOTERS & RELOADERS – Vol.1, pg 463, he makes this statement regarding the introduction by Winchester of their .338 magnum: “It is somewhat of a mystery why this odd size bullet was selected when so many fine .35 caliber bullets have been available for so many years. Certainly there could be little ballistic advantage. This can be seen by comparing the ballistics of the new .338 Winchester Magnum with those of any similar .35 Magnum cartridges.”

How different in our time from the situation in P.O. Ackley’s day! In his era .35 Magnums were “in” and he found it strange that Winchester opted to use the “old .33 Winchester bullet size” instead of .333″ that wildcatters had been using for some time. And that introduction by Winchester in 1958 as the .338 Winchester Magnum Alaskan seemingly changed the perception by both hunters and handloaders that this new magnum would forever be superior to .35-calibers. So bullet manufactures followed rifle makers, and then Weatherby introduced their .340 Wby Mag in 1960, leading ultimately to a proliferation of various competitor versions of .338 magnums, including the .338 Lapua.

And that is a very short version of many details involved as to why the .35s have continued to play a catch-up game to the .338s.

But, despite the competition, various versions of the .35 Whelen have remained strong among the cognoscenti. It is perceived as one of the best among mediums – and with good reason in my view.

< Some bullets tested in my .35s.

Let’s face some facts: The .35s have better expansion ratios than .338 magnums or those based on the same .30-06 case. Given the same amount of powder at the same psi and barrel length, the .35 Whelen will exceed the .338-06 in MV by about 100 fps for 250s. This result is the product of physics. Many have claimed the opposite for their .338-06s. Yet there is a huge “BUT” involved if that claim be true! They have had to be using the best powder for the application, a longer barrel and higher psi! Real, non-prejudiced results for the .35 Whelen happens when the best powder is used, the same length barrel, same psi, and the same bullet weight and construction. 2700 fps from certain new powders and 24″ barrels are now realised at standard psi for particular 250gr bullets from the .35 Whelen cartridge. That is the equal of original claims for 250s from a 24″, .338 Winchester Magnum! Of course, since the original claims for the .338 Win Mag, the standard MV has been reduced to 2660 fps for factory 250s. We know, however, that the .338 Win Mag has also attained new status from safe handloads employing better powders. 2800 fps is now safely possible from certain 250s and 24″ barrels, so the .338 Win Mag is still about 100 fps ahead of the .35 Whelen using identical bullet weights. Still, the .338 WIN gets that from (SAAMI) 64,000 psi, whereas the .35 Whelen attains 2700 fps from (SAAMI) 62,000 psi. Expansion ratio (again) is the key.

That I could attain an average of 2710 fps from the 250gr Speer GS in my .350 Rem Mag with a 22″ barrel was great, but no mystery. It, again, was a combination of factors: Expansion ratio, the right powder and bullet, chamber and barrel. That load would shoot better than I could… into 3/8″ when I was shooting as well as it deserved.

As previously written in my blogs, I’ve owned .338 Win Mags: one with a 20″ barrel (SAKO FS) and another with a 26″ barrel (Browning A-Bolt that later became a .340 WBY). Back in those days, after a lot of work, I managed to extract up to 2715 fps from the 250gr Sierra BT in the SAKO FS. Most 250s made the factory claim of 2660 fps. The 26″ Browning surprised me at 2841 fps from the 250gr Hornady and RL-19 before it was rechambered to a .340 WBY. Then, I had helped our second son develop handloads for his Rem 700 in .338 Win Mag. It had a 24″ tube and made 2735 fps from the 250gr Hornady SP Interloc. That was in using around 73 grains of IMR 4831 and magnum primers. In general, I found RL-19 best overall for the .338 WIN and RL-22 best for the .340 WBY in using the 250s or heavier bullets.

In the .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag, RL-15 was the ticket. Today, there are other powders that work better ballistics in the Whelen at least.

Of course, as you know by now if you’ve been following my stuff, a 9.3 x 62 has replaced all other medium bores. It’s close to both .35s and .375s — about midway between. So best ballistics reflect that.

But the appeal of non-magnum mediums is fourfold:

1 – Less recoil for “magnum” effect!

2 – Less weight for “magnum” effect!

3 – Less cost for “magnum” effect!

4 – Better ballistics than could be obtained from a medium magnum at the same recoil, weight and cost!

A return to the .35 Whelen is apparent among many who’ve previously experienced medium magnum’s weight, recoil and costs!

And the general North American perception of the 9.3 x 62 is as an alternative to a .35 Whelen, .338 Winchester Magnum or even a .375 H&H.

Whatever the case, it should now be apparent to hunters, shooters and handloaders that some popular mid-bore, non-magnum cartridges can accomplish anything for which medium magnums had previously been chosen… with less work, pain and $$$.

I’ve no regrets over making my .338 Win Mag Browning into a .340 WBY. I learned a great deal from that experience. But in shooting a bull moose with it as a .340 Wby Mag, at about 165 yards, I’m quite sure that a .35 Whelen would have worked just as well at that range. In replacement of the .340, I chose a .350 Rem Mag that ultimately gave the ballistics mentioned above. In looking for another .35 Whelen, I came across a 9.3 x 62 on sale.

The first thing I did after purchasing the TIKKA in 9.3 x 62 was to compare potential ballistics with the .340 because of anticipation of using it on moose in the north of our province. Of course, my results from the .340 was a process over time… So also for the 9.3 x 62.

Rifle: A-Bolt Browning SS/LH converted from a .338 Win Mag to a .340 Wby Mag (26″ barrel)

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

MV = 3000 fps/ 4995 ft-lbs/ 140 TE/ -1.75″

100= 2808 fps/ 4377 ft-lbs/ 123 TE/ +2.35″

200= 2625 fps/ 3825 ft-lbs/ 107 TE/ +2.02″

300= 2449 fps/ 3329 ft-lbs/ 93 TE/ -3.36″

400= 2280 fps/ 2884 ft-lbs/ 81 TE/ -14.5″

500= 2117 fps/2487 ft-lbs/ 70 TE/ -32.5″

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Rifle: TIKKA T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62 (.366-cal), 22.44″ barrel.

Bullet: 286gr Nosler Partition

MV = 2640 fps/ 4425 ft-lbs/ 142 TE/ -1.75″

100= 2466 fps/ 3862 ft-lbs/ 124 TE/ +3.37″

200= 2299 fps/ 3357 ft-lbs/ 108 TE/ +2.75″

300= 2139 fps/ 2905 ft-lbs/ 93 TE/ -4.47″

400= 1985 fps/ 2502 ft-lbs/ 80 TE/ -19.3″

500= 1838 fps/ 2145 ft-lbs/ 69 TE/ -43.0″

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The results of best ballistics (TE = terminal effect) from each is given to 500 yards, including emphasis on momentum, SD and cross-sectional-area (CSA) of each bullet. It turns out that the 9.3 x 62 is about the same as the .340 in real effect with all matters considered. But there are physical distinctions that might matter to some: The .340 was using 90.5 grains of RL-22 under the 250gr Nosler Partition for an MV of 3000 fps. The rifle was 46.5″ in length and 8.8 lbs ready. Recoil was 54 ft-lbs. In my 9.3 x 62, the load intended for moose in the “Far North” was the 286gr Nosler Partition over 70 grains of RL-17 for an MV of 2640 fps. The rifle is 42.44″ in length and 7.7 lbs ready. Recoil is calculated at 48 ft-lbs. Each rifle has a clip magazine that holds three. A fourth could be added with one in the chamber.

The advantage of the .340 was in trajectory. It’s comparative negatives were it’s length, weight and recoil. Though, at the time, I never noticed any of that as negatives. I shot it well from offhand at 165 yards and bullets went exactly where intended.

< The bear was 6′ from nose to tail and the 286gr Partition penetrated 30″. The bear was field dressed where it died. My partner, Ken, was 3 Km at another site and heard the shot. He radioed asking if that was my shot and did I need help. I responded positively and in about ten minutes he arrived. We hung the bear overnight in the same tree as my stand. Early the next morning he took this pic, following which the bear was skinned and the 286 Nosler fell to the ground from the right flank near the hip.

My current 9.3 x 62 has been used on three bears: Twice from tree stands at 68 yards and 85 yards. The other was the first. It involved the final killing of a bear that had been wounded by a young friend. That load was the 286gr Hornady at about 2400 fps. At his first shot from a tree stand to my right, he hit the bear in a leg. The range was 135 yards to the bait on the edge of thick bush. The bear immediately headed into the bush and I fired my first shot at a fast disappearing bear — in fact when I fired his quickly disappearing butt was all I saw. But that frightened the bear (the Hornady never hit it!) and it came running back in our direction not knowing where the fire was coming from! I waited for my friend to shoot again… Nada! He never fired a second shot the whole time the bear was by then almost hobbling through the long-thick grass toward the tree line we had our stands in! I was unfastening my safety harness and yelling at him to “SHOOT!!” When I landed on terra firma, I was still yelling at him to “SHOOT!” He didn’t, and the bear made it through the tree line into the pasture of the other side. I then could see the bear about 50 yards beyond the tree line, struggling in the tall thick grass — and slowing. I said, calmly, “Ben, shoot the bear!” He fired two more shots from his .300 Win Mag and hit another leg! I asked him to shoot again… he said something in a whisper… I asked with some indignation, and loud enough that the bear could hear, as well as any neighbors, “WHY ARE YOU WHISPERING?” “I’m out of ammo….” was his meek reply! Then… I chased after the bear that was still plowing through the tall grass like a porpoise in the ocean! I fired another shot while running and missed! Then the bear stopped… I fired again and that was that. I fired a total of three 286 Hornadys and the last connected and finished the job on a bear with two broken legs.

Did someone mention “recoil”? That… believe me, wasn’t even a thought… the last thought went something like this: “Is this cripple finally dead!?”

The other two were clean, one-shot kills, though each bear ran off for 20 yards or so. The first of those was the “moose load”, and the second a 250gr Nosler AccuBond at around 2700 fps. The recoil of each was fast but not punishing from tree stands, and they hit where aimed. Both were body, non-shoulder or CNS, hits. The 286 Hornady did take out at least one lung and several inches of spine before going off somewhere into the bush. No bullet fragments were found. The 286 Partition was a frontal shot when all I could see was the head above the grass. I aimed below that and hit the chest frontally and that bullet stopped in the right flank retaining 73% of initial weight. The 250gr AccuBond was from the treestand to the bait setup at 85 yards. The bear was on top of the bait in a barrel, angling slightly away. The bullet hit high in the back about mid-body, taking out lungs and heart before exiting between chest and left front leg. The loss of blood was massive for about 20 yards where he died in mid-stride. I was very impressed with the results from the 250gr AccuBond, and the Hornady worked very well also. The Partition simply did what was expected. < The 286gr Nosler Partition retrieved from the right flank of the bear shown above.

I see no reason why my experiences from the mid-bores cannot be replicated by knowledgeable and dedicated handloaders of the same. They are good enough for anything to be hunted in North America, including the “big bears” plus most things in the rest of the world.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why Cartridges of the 19th and 20th Centuries are Good Enough

With the current proliferation of “new and better” rifle cartridges, why would anyone choose a rifle cartridge of over a hundred years old? Yet, some of those are still favorites among many knowledgeable hunters and handloaders. Here’s a short list: .45-70 (148 years old), .223 Remington 1957), .243 Winchester (1955), .25-06 Remington (as a “cat” to 1920), 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser (1894), .270 Winchester (1925), 7 mm Remington Magnum (1962), .30-30 Winchester (1895), .30-06 Springfield (1906), .300 Winchester Magnum (1963), .338 Winchester Magnum (1958), .35 Whelen (1922 as a “cat”), 9.3 x 62 (1905), .375 H&H (1912), .416 Rigby (1911), .458 Winchester Magnum (1956), and .500 Jeffery (1920). Apologies for not including your favorite.

But the point is that any found in that list can more than accomplish all that was intended for them at the time of their introduction, and they are even better today in newly manufactured rifles and in loading the best available components in both powders and bullets. In fact, it is claimed that any of those mentioned, plus some others that have not been, can accomplish with lighter bullets today than what was deemed essential in days of yore. But none of those rifle cartridges are less than fifty-eight years old and nine are over one-hundred, with the still favorite .45-70 wearing that crown at 148 years!

< A modern single-shot in .45-70 Springfield

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not necessarily negative toward anything that’s new or better, as such! Yet, name one rifle cartridge (not the rifle) that has been introduced in the 21st century that’s “better than” anything that has preceded it! Granted, we are still less than a quarter century into the 21st, but let’s notice how many innovative cartridges were introduced during the first quarter of the 20th century, some as wildcats that became favorites with hunters and later legitimised. Of those listed, I’ve never owned (or handloaded) a 243 Winchester (though I recommended it to our youngest son), a .30-30 Winchester, a .416 Rigby or the .500 Jeffery.

A couple of .223 Rems and a .25-06 have fulfilled anything a .243 Win could do for me, and as to .30-calibers, I’ve owned three .30-06’s and eight .300 magnums. Several mediums have been owned and on the top end the great .458 Win Mag does it all, plus! All have been handloaded and taken on some hunting expeditions. So, really, I’m not fascinated by anything introduced this century or less than fifty years old!

But I do like new rifles and “best” handloading components, as well as improved methods and technologies!

If I had to choose three rifles from those listed — and I already have two of ’em — they’d be:

1 – a .25-06 Remington (for varmints and predators – except bears)

2 – the 9.3 x 62 that I already have (for deer to moose)

3 – the .458 Winchester Magnum that I already own (It can do it all — whatever I want!). There are 250gr monos to 550gr Woodleighs. My favorites thus far are: 300gr TSX’s at up to 2980 fps (that’s “up to”, not necessarily what I plan to use for hunting. My hunting load is around 2775 fps). The 450gr Swift A-Frame at “up to” 2400+fps and/or the 450 TSX at the same approximate speed. Then I’m just taken with the 480gr DGX (by Hornady) at anything between 1750 fps to 2350 fps. If it never expands, it’s still a killer with that flat point! I’d really like to have a suitable 400gr for most anything at up to 2600 fps. I’ve gotten 2590 fps from my favorite 400gr X-Bullet but, alas, Barnes doesn’t make ’em anymore! Yet, I still hold onto a handful for the right bear or moose.

So many things to do, and so little time to do it in! So I’ll be content with what I have…. there’s really nothing lacking therein!

Right now…

My load for bear come September 1st is either the 405gr Remington at 2085 fps or the 400gr Barnes Buster at about the same speed. From the same 75 grain load of RL-15 they shoot into a single hole at 50 yards! COL for the 405gr load is 3.26″ and the 400gr Buster load is 3.3″.

Following are some ballistic profiles of the 405 Remington and 400 Buster from the Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 Win Mag — keeping in mind that these are relatively modest or reduced loads, more than adequate for bear at any suitable range. And should there be need for full penetration of any large critter then the Buster will deliver that at down to 1200 – 1400 fps impact. Also, a comparison with one of the .458’s offsprings will be made for interest’s sake. Please also keep in mind that 2100 fps is a median load for a 400gr from the great .458 Win Mag. I’m sure you’ve noticed that 2600 fps is available for certain 400s from .458 Win + loads. That is with a COL that equals or exceeds the Lott. 2600 fps = 6004 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle and about 2800 ft-lbs at 500 yards from the 400gr X-Bullet. So, my “bear” load, while not “mild” at just over 3900 ft-lbs at the muzzle is still “only” 65% of my .458’s full potential! That’s why a .458 Win Mag has to be considered one the most versatile cartridges extant for the handloader who understands and can manage its potential in either direction… up or down!

Cartridge: .458 Winchester Magnum in a Ruger #1 Tropical

Bullet: 405gr Remington; SD = .276; BC = .281

Powder: 75 grains of RL-15

WLRM primers

Hornady cases

MV = 2085 fps/ 3909 ft-lbs/ 178 TE

50 = 1954 fps/ 3433 ft-lbs/ 156 TE

100= 1829 fps/ 3007 ft-lbs/ 137 TE

150= 1709 fps/ 2627 ft-lbs/ 120 TE

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bullet: 400gr Barnes Buster; SD = .272; BC = .242

MV = 2100 fps/ 3916 ft-lbs/ 176 TE

50 = 1948 fps/ 3369 ft-lbs/ 151 TE

100= 1803 fps/ 2888 ft-lbs/ 130 TE

200= 1539 fps/ 2102 ft-lbs/ 94 TE

250= 1420 fps/ 1792 ft-lbs/ 80 TE

300= 1314 fps/ 1532 ft-lbs/ 69 TE

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Cartridge: .338 Win Mag

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition; SD = .313; BC = .473

MV = 2750 fps/ 4197 ft-lbs/ 118 TE

50 = 2658 fps/ 3922 ft-lbs/ 110 TE

100 =2569 fps/ 3662 ft-lbs/ 103 TE

150 =2481 fps/ 3416 ft-lbs/ 96 TE

200 =2395 fps/ 3183 ft-lbs/ 89 TE

300 =2228 fps/ 2754 ft-lbs/ 77 TE

350 =2148 fps/ 2557 ft-lbs/ 72 TE

Some notes on the above:

A – Sight-ins are not included because that is a variable depending on hunting area and game. However, my Ruger #1 in .458 is already sighted with the two loads: 50 yards zero for the 405 Remington and -0.69″ at 100 yards. The 400 Buster is sighted at 100 yards zero; both for bear. At 50 yards they made a single ragged hole from two of each. The 400gr Buster could be used on anything at any practical range where velocity is still 1400 fps or better. A side brain shot on an elephant would completely penetrate the skull at 1400 fps, or perhaps even less.

B – The TE (terminal effect) numbers are a particular result of KE, SD and CSA (cross-section-area of bullet). It’s similar in some ways to TKO. But the point being that bullet momentum plus caliber and sectional density have a greater effect on larger game than KE only, however those are combined.

C – So, for bear I rely on bullet caliber and weight more than KE only. That concept has proven itself to me more times than not.

D – That .338 Win Mag load is considered max or nearly so from a 24″ barrel. Recoil from an 8.5 lb rifle ready to shoot is about 40 ft-lbs KE. The recoil from the two “bear loads” in my #1 Ruger in .458 is 31.5 ft-lbs. Of course, the .458 is two pounds heavier and has (for some) the dreaded Mag-na-ports, especially for any standing beside the muzzle which NEVER happens in the type of hunting I do. From my end of the rifle, I never notice the muzzle “blast” more than a non-ported rifle. In actual fact, my Ruger 77 in .458 Win Mag was far worse with its 22″ barrel, non ported! And, yes, those loads were “mild” too.

< Two 405s made the “hole” at target center and two 400 Barnes Busters made the hole to the right of it slightly higher. The ragged hole measures .458″ x 1.08″. Widest spread from center to centre of the four is .60″ as best I could measure with a caliper. The target was at 50 yards and shot Wednesday, July 21, 2021.

(The small holes were made a month earlier in shooting my CZ 455 .22LR at 100 yards).

Of course, you could kill almost anything with a side brain shot. Our oldest son, Brent, has taken many warthogs in Africa with such shots from his single-shot .22 LR. Warthogs were their source of protein.

< So, how well do I like the Ruger No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum? Since I very much like the No.1 Rugers (I’ve owned several) and the .458 Win Mag cartridge, together they make an excellent marriage in my view. Of course, something nobody wants is a “lightweight” .458 Win Mag! Lightweight rifles are “in”, but idealism rarely works well enough in the real world! The problem with lightweight rifles is in cartridges that produce too much felt recoil for the light rifle! I know because I have one! As I load my 9.3 x 62, which is in a Tikka T3 Lite, it generates between 40 to 50 ft-lbs of real recoil! It’s great to carry, and get it into a tree stand, but shooting it at the bench in load development and practice isn’t fun if I shoot too many! In hunting shots from a tree stand, it’s quickness has surprised me but never hurt me. So in adding another five cartridges to a buttstock holder, plus three in the clip and one “up the spout”, it all comes in around 8 lbs. 8.5 lbs would be better. The point being that recoil from the 9.3 x 62 Tikka is faster than the .458 median loads.

But, it has been said by several “experts”: “Get off the bench” as soon as you have your loads and sight-ins! Find a place for practice from realistic positions… but NOT from prone with “heavy hitters”! Standing offhand, kneeling or using some natural object for a rest — like a mound, branch, deadfall, etc. In a tree stand usually there’s a built-in rest for the seating position. Mine didn’t have that feature from the factory so I fabricated one.

“Old” is still “IN” for some of us. After all, I seem very acquainted with that designation!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL