Tree Stand, Ground Blind or Improvisation? P2

Last week the conversation was about tree stands. Without going into finite details their 1) Advantages and, 2) Disadvantages were discussed. Other matters such as a potential fall was not talked about. Yet the sheer fact of being 15 to 20 feet above ground implies the need for caution and a safety harness, especially in the case of those whose life styles don’t include climbing ladders or trees in the use of pegs attached thereto.

< Tide out, notice the ladder.

I was born into an East Coast fishing community where the public wharf for docking fishing boats was only about 200 yards/meters from our house. Being a part of the Bay of Fundy (Google: Bay of Fundy Tides: Highest in the world) with tides ranging from 21 feet to 28 feet from low to high tides at our location – depending on the phases of the moon, the Earth’s rotation and location in its yearly voyage around the Sun — and tides rising and falling about twice daily (actually 24 hours and 53 minutes average), required the use of ladders built into the sides of the dock. We used them for getting “on board” our fishing vessels. Sometimes during “high water” (when the tide was “in”) the boats were more or less at eye level when we boarded, and we could step from the dock onto the deck of the boat. But mostly the sea level was somewhere between “high and low tide” due to the sea water level being about an hour late to where it was the previous day, so on one morning the sea level at the dock might be, say, at 15 feet below dock level and the next morning at 16, and so on until it starts to rise again in the tide’s cycles.

<Tide in

One of my “jobs” on the Bob & Stan (named after my dad’s youngest son and my uncle’s son) was to tote water on board. (That had changed when the new, larger boat had a built-in water tank that held several hundred gallons.) That consisted of two 5 gallon metal containers with spouts (with screw-on caps) and a larger opening on top for filling with screw-on caps. At age fifteen I started carrying those from a source of water supply to the wharf, then another 150 feet to where the boat was docked, then down the ladder (one can at a time) whether the boat was “eye” level or 20 feet below. One hand was used for holding the 5 gallon container of water and the other for grabbing the 1″ thick round steel rungs. Of course we’d stay on the first one forever if we didn’t let go as we stepped down to the next rung for our boots, and the next one in turn for my right hand! We knew that if we missed one for the boots or hand… well, should that happen it would be very sad news for the family and community. SO, WE NEVER MISSED A RUNG either for hand or boot!

I practice the same carefulness for a hunting tree stand — ladder type! Some have lost their lives by falling from tree stands, especially early on in their manufacture and use. Others have ended their careers as hunters becoming cripples! SO!!! Let’s not be foolish or careless in their use! My best hunting buddy for many years disliked tree stands — he preferred to have his feet on the ground. But if circumstances dictated he use one, he was especially careful!

<This was my tree stand on private property until removed at the end of the 2015 bear season.

GROUND BLINDS

I really like ground blinds — not the manufactured kind, but natural ones constructed from deadfalls, brush, tree limbs or small trees. But I have also used green indoor-outdoor carpet remnants! Ground blinds work especially well from a higher elevation, such as the side of a ridge, looking from a downward angle toward natural game habitat at a lower level. Actually, they serve as well (or better) as a tree stand with a possible elevation of +25 to +40 feet above the target area with boots still on the ground! Of course, all that depends on the area. Where I’ve done most of my hunting over the past forty years has been on variable terrain — not much flat ground — including differing heights of ridges, ravines, marshes, streams and various sized lakes and ponds. So it’s not too difficult to find ideal locations for blinds, or the natural materials for constructing them. Over time they will again become part of the wilderness from which they were created. No one in passing through will ever notice! And it’s possible to construct several in a given area on Crown Land. So, in review these are their…

Advantages: 1) Feet always on the ground; 2) More room for movement without detection by game; 3) Ability to leave the blind for any reason without much disturbance; 4) Several ground blinds can be created in the same general area; and 5) Ground blinds built from natural sources cost $0.00!

Several blinds has immense value: Depending on wind direction and time of day, we may want to move for better shelter from the wind or having it in our face rather than carrying our scent into the nostrils of the game being pursued. Also, a view of the same area with the Sun at our backs rather than shining directly into our eyes, or on us, that might expose our position more readily to the searching eyes of game or predators.

In other words, as we would normally do in switching from one side of a marsh or pond to the opposite, as the Sun moves from east to west during the hunting day. If we had no blind we’d normally do that on foot anyway to keep ourselves in the shadows and the game exposed to sunlight. If only one ground blind is possible in a given terrain, it should be located as near north or south of the area being watched as possible to avoid the Sun shining into our eyes in early morning or late afternoon.

Disadvantages: Some have been briefly hinted at under Advantages, being; 1) A single blind of natural construction from brush or forest material is fixed and cannot be moved, much like a tree stand. That’s why it has been suggested to have a second, opposite each other (if possible), or possibly at 90 degrees from the main one as an option if the first has been discovered by game or predators, or as a better option due to weather changes or time of day.

I had to do that on a hunt for a particular bear that knew the location of the permanent ground blind. I’ve previously written on this in detail, but the focus was on a bear’s knowledge and awareness of what he considered his home turf.

2) A natural blind in a fixed location is subject to seasonal deterioration due to potential storms with high winds and/or disturbances by wild animals, plus dying branches and leaves. So they often need renovation. Nothing should be hammered in place with nails, but the use of a strong cord, rope or tough string works very well. Remember, these are temporary structures. So the best time for any repairs or changes should NOT be during the hunt itself but, rather, when we are quite certain of not disturbing the game being hunted. Of course… we can never be 100% sure of that.

3) Finally, since a ground blind is usually in lieu of a tree stand on Crown Land (public land), it should not be located too close to trails used by hikers, campers, ATV’ers or fishermen passing by. The reasons should be obvious to those with much experience in such territory, where it could be too accessible for human disturbances or interference with the blinds themselves.

Of course, there’s an obvious market for “store-bought” blinds and shelters. They wouldn’t be manufactured unless there were buyers! Depending on several factors, such as: territory, public land or private, game pursued, etc., there may be some advantages. However, in my experience with ground blinds and tree stands, they WILL sooner or later be discovered by wildlife! What then?

I’ve had bears tear down my blinds and tear holes in “new” indoor-outdoor green carpet material! Several bears wouldn’t come to baits as long as someone was in a blind or tree stand! So the ability to construct blinds and/ or tree stands in alternate locations is a factor of significance for “local” deer and bear. For others attracted to food sources from “out of town”, initially unfamiliar with the territory, it may not make a lot of difference, but for the “locals”, they already know what we’re doing, when and where… This 450 lb bear made his show at 6:07 pm in daylight because I was NOT in my tree stand 85 yards to the right — and he knew it!

And likely “Why”!

Count on it!

The element of SURPRISE will be non-existent!

That’s why IMPROVISATION is a preferred mode of hunting when animals know our habits and schedule! In the case of that bear I needed a change of schedule!

And that’s up-coming next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Tree Stand, Ground Blind or Improvisation? P1

The question is: Which is best? The answer is: “It depends …” Of course, this has to do with where we go in the morning of the hunt before the Sun rises, or mid-day while animals sleep and we’d like to, or before the Sun sets in early evening. Tree stand, blind or a mix of walking about, waiting quietly from a familiar spot that overlooks good game habitat, or watching for anything moving in timber, brush or open country — in other words: To do what’s best in an unforeseen or immediate situation.

The tree stand and blind suggest there’s a strong probability of the wanted animal being drawn to a specific location by the attraction of food — natural or placed by hunters. The freedom to move about and choose prime locations suggests more self-governance to explore new territory and possibilities. While I’ve experienced all three modes, by far my preference is having freedom of choice to explore new possibilities.

All three modes of pursuing game are used in today’s world of hunting, and often under the tutelage of a pro guide who controls every movement. Recently, on a TV hunting program I watched a beautiful young lady, country singer, being so managed by a pro guide on a pronghorn hunt on the western prairies. He did everything except pull the trigger for her, though he did tell her “Now!”.

The only times I’ve hired an outfitter was early on in my bear hunts, and he was never within five miles when I pulled the trigger on bears! One thing I will never do in hunting is sacrifice the freedom enjoyed in hunting, and making self-reliance and independence an offering to someone else when I pull the trigger.

But sometimes the freedom of moving about could be at the cost of a successful hunt if some animals are the objective — such as black bears drawn to bait. Then, strict discipline in a number of ways is absolutely called for!

The TREE STAND

Its advantages: 1) Elevation above ground obstructions, such as deadfalls, brush and large boulders, that would otherwise interfere with clear viewing at ground level. Also a more panoramic view of a larger area. And ground dwelling animals don’t tend to look up into trees to see what’s “up there” unless there’s some noise associated with obvious movement; 2) The elevation of the hunter from 12 to 20 feet above ground level also elevates the human scent factor that otherwise might give away the presence of the hunter. 3) It restricts the movement of the hunter that reduces potential noises at ground level associated with stepping on dry leaves, brittle twigs, climbing over dead falls, slipping on wet rocks or falling that could immediately be detected by game animals and predators in the area.

Its disadvantages: 1) The most obvious being restriction of movement, or travel to a different location. To leave the tree stand involves considerable motion that WILL disturb any yet unseen, but nearby, game that we may be pursuing, such as deer, bear, elk or predators. 2) Tree stands are uncomfortable for very long stints… and some for very short stints! A lot depends on their size and “accommodations”, as well as the size, weight and physical condition of the hunter. Some persons (hunters in particular) just can’t sit still for fifteen minutes, let alone for endless hours! 3) Most tree stands are more or less attached to a suitable tree in a chosen location for the duration of the season in question… or even permanently! You just don’t move one to a new location in a half-hour! And the “bigger” it is to accommodate more weight and/or persons, the more challenging it will be to remove it from its present location to a new one. And depending on several more issues to be settled before the season starts, it may NOT be possible to have alternate locations available, or several alternate stands in the same general area. 4) If the wind is strong with a chill in it, that will be felt much more in a tree stand than at ground level. Also, as the strength of the Sun is diminishing as it moves toward the horizon — then sets below the horizon, or ridge and possibly behind a tree line, temps can plunge sharply! If we’re not dressed for those events, we’ll be far more focused on getting into a warm vehicle or sitting before a fire than firing our rifles on the planned and hoped for game animal or predator. How to keep from freezing for the last hour of the hunting day, which is often the most crucial — especially for big bears, will become our main concern. How do I know that? I’ll let you guess! At times I’ve had to leave the stand to go to my vehicle for more clothes and a hot drink before returning!

<

A tree stand view of a bear bait in the blue barrel at the bottom of the tree where the rifle’s pointed. The rifle was my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT loaded with the 300gr TSX at 2650 fps. Range was 125 yards. This was private property where I and a couple of partners had taken a total of five bears. There were two stands and this one was not always in this particular location (Right click on pic, then left click on “Open in new tab”, then L click on “new tab” for a better view).

I own a single-person tree stand that is the most basic ladder type. It is generally quite easy to set up and attach to a sturdy tree. But even then, the assistance of another hunter is greatly appreciated. I added a rest for my rifle and a pad for my butt! Also, I can stand for breaks after sitting for long periods. It’s been used exclusively for bear hunts over baits on private land with two exceptions for two seasons on Crown land where it was chained to an 18″ thick Rock Maple tree for one season, and a heavier spruce for another. On private property there’s little chance of it being stolen, which is a strong possibility on Crown land (public land).

(My ladder stand facing across the open field on the far side tree line where the bear bait barrel was located in 2015. This is private property.)

New straps were added and parts were repainted a few times. It also has a brace about midway that attaches to the tree. All in all, I’d say it’s been worth more to me than the mere dollars invested in it. When I’m seated, eye level is at about 14.5 feet above ground, and when standing eye level is about +16 feet. It came in three parts: Top part with the seat (a grid of steel about 20″ x 12″ on which I attach a pad) and attachments for straps for the tree and self. The middle section plugs into the top section and has the rest for boots with feet in them, plus a steel brace that attaches to the tree. The bottom section plugs into the mid section and is a simple “ladder” that rests on the ground. I’ve owned it for about fifteen years and it still does its job as expected. Not the most comfortable but it’s sturdy. So I highly value tree stands in certain contexts.< My partner early in the season was Ben, and his ladder stand was on the same private property. He shot two bears over two seasons and I shot three over three seasons and finished off his second that was badly wounded. My rifle was the 9.3 x 62. The first bear was the wounded one using a 286gr Hornady at a bit over 2400 fps. The second was my own 6′ bear (nose to tail) using a 286 Nosler Partition at about 2620 fps. On the third I used the 250 Accubond at just over 2700 fps. Ranges for my bears were 68 yards and 85 yards — one shot each.

Below is my first bear the following year (2013) using the 286gr Nosler at 68 yards. It was a frontal hit as it faced me in tall grass. The bullet fell out from the right flank in skinning. The bear was hung on the opposite side of the tree to which my ladder stand was attached. I’m exactly 6′ from the top of my hat to the heel of my boots — the exact same length for the bear from nose tip (if it was pointed straight up) to it’s rump. It was a relatively young, fast-growing bear with little fat. My shoulder is leaning against the boar bear, and its innards were removed the previous evening before hanging it in the tree.

My partner in 2013 was Ken, a recently retired CO, who took the photo before we tackled the skinning job about 8:30 a.m. The straps on the tree are those attached to the stand, and the top most is above the pic. While in the stand we were exempt from using hunter orange. At the time of my shot (6:47 p.m.) he was 3 kilometers from me in another stand using a bow. He heard my shot and immediately made radio contact. In about ten minutes he arrived to lend a hand in gutting and getting the bear back up from the ravine into which it had fallen, and then hanging it for the night til early the next day.

The next presentation (P2) will be about ground blinds — their pros and cons.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The Importance of a Bullet’s Ballistic Coefficient (BC)

The ballistic coefficient (BC) of a rifle’s bullet is rarely considered by the average hunter who uses store-bought ammo. If the box that contains the cartridges says “Long Range” then, despite any extra cost, it’s purchased as a “wonder bullet” for any range to “long range”, or “far”. What is mostly overlooked is that the very streamlined looking bullet, no matter how “pretty” it looks to the buyer or handloader, as the case may be, is designed to expand at relatively low impact velocity. If it has a jacket over a lead core, the jacket will be thinner than one designed for relatively closer ranges. Result? An explosive bullet on an animal at close range!

To construct a bullet’s design for “long range”, there are essentially only two ways this can be done: 1) The sectional density (SD) of the bullet must be relatively high – hence, not light for caliber, and 2) a much longer and streamlined one than usually employed in the same weight for caliber. If the bullet is monolithic, that is of pure copper or copper alloy, it will be longer still than one with a lead core and gilding jacket since zinc and copper are lighter than lead. When a sharp-plastic pointed tip is added for greater BC effect, the bullet will be still longer for the same weight. An example of that is this 300gr/.375-caliber AccuBond. Note its length and location of the cannelure.

So we need to ask ourselves some intelligent questions: 1- Do I need a LR bullet for any hunting purpose? 2- Taking into account the maximum overall length of the cartridge (COL) allowed by the action of my rifle, or the clip magazine (if that’s what my rifle uses for additional cartridges), or the total cartridge length permitted by the chambering, will a very high BC rating for the bullet be taking away space in the cartridge that would normally be occupied by the best propellant?

There’s only one way to know for sure that expected or desired velocities from the bullet in question is actually attaining the MV advertised in a factory product, or from a handloader’s manual, and that is in the use of a chronograph at the range! A strictly LR projectile might end up being a compromise: holding its velocity better to target, but losing some initial velocity from the start!

I like bullets with high BCs because they do maintain speed better to the animal which potentially means higher energy at impact. That also translates to less time in transit so a flatter trajectory is maintained. (For a larger view of photos, right click on photo, then left click on :”Open in new tab”, then L click on the “new tab”)

However, there appears to be a majority of hunters who are increasingly drawn to lighter monolithic bullets being unaware that they will slow faster than a heavier one with a lead core that could well have a higher BC.

Compare these two max loads from the same rifle catridge to confirm this point:

Rifle cartridge: .300 H&H Magnum: 24″ test barrel; 150gr Barnes MRX BT

SD = .226; BC = .420

MV = 3249 fps/ 3515 ft-lbs

100 = 3020 fps/ 3037 ft-lbs

200 = 2803 fps/ 2616 ft-lbs/ 2.54″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ zero

300 = 2596 fps/ 2245 ft-lbs/ 5.86″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -2.91″

400 = 2399 fps/ 1916 ft-lbs/ 10.77″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -7.13″

500 = 2210 fps/ 1626 ft-lbs/ 17.46″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -28.6″

The ambient conditions: Alt @ 1150′; Temp @ 55*F; RH @ 55%

Rifle cartridge: .300 H&H Magnum: 24″ test barrel; 180gr Nosler AB

SD = .271; BC = .507

MV = 3028 fps/ 3652 ft-lbs

100 = 2842 fps/ 3228 ft-lbs

200 = 2669 fps/ 2846 ft-lbs/ 2.29″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ zero

300 = 2502 fps/ 2501 ft-lbs/ 5.26″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -3.25″

400 = 2341 fps/ 2190 ft-lbs/ 9.61″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -14.07″

500 = 2186 fps/ 1910 ft-lbs/ 15.49″ drift in 10 mph crosswind/ -31.24″

Ambient conditions the same as for the 165gr Barnes MRX BT.

Notes: Both rifles were tested in 24″ test barrels and the above results were the best loads in MV. Note also that at 300 yards the 180gr has 2501 ft-lbs vs 2245 for the 165gr and starts to drift less in a 10 mph crosswind.

At 500 yards the 180gr has nearly 300 ft-lbs more energy and drifts about 2″ less in a 10 mph cross wind.

These facts are highlighted to demonstrate that a heavier bullet in the same caliber from the same rifle, assuming optimum MV for each, will produce better results in downrange energy and drift if bullet profiles are similar. If the 150gr AB had been chosen over the 150 Barnes MRX BT, results would have been too similar to matter much, as the BC of the 150gr AB is .435 vs .420 for the 150gr MRX BT.

For game to about 550 lbs at 500 yards it probably doesn’t make a lot of difference in choosing between the two, but what if the range is farther or the animal is larger? On the other hand the 180gr AB could be appropriate for game to 750 – 800 lbs at 500 yards assuming a proper hit. That could be a large, mature bull elk.

To put matters in perspective: The current ballistic culture to use lighter bullets because of their construction, faster MV and slightly less recoil is a mistake if larger, tougher game is pursued as illustrated in this unbiased demonstration. I don’t have an axe to grind in what has been presented, and this could be proven by at least 10,000 times over in various scenarios.

If I have a concern it is that the average North American hunter is NOT fully aware of the potential ballistics from his chosen rifle — or it’s limitations. And that includes MANY who should know better.

I’ve met scores of hunters at our range at which I’ve been a member for the past thirty plus years. A majority are handloaders who should be fully aware of where their bullets will hit a target to 300 yards at least, since that’s the limit of our range. Yet the vast majority of hunters among that group of handloaders NEVER use a chronograph to verify their loads! A number of years ago a veteran handloader and moose hunter made a stand for chronographs, and to this day I’ve only seen one other person use it besides myself! It has been used as a pistol rest, a tall desk for signing in and out, and otherwise ignored!

When I’ve asked questions about loads, the typical answer is “I go by the books”, and I ask: “So then you take as gospel what you read there?”

Apparently the CHRONY chronograph business has closed shop! I’m saddened! It appears that it couldn’t compete with newer American models in price. A couple of weeks ago I spied a Caldwell at a local shop and I may just buy one as a backup. The number of times I’ve gone to the range over the past three decades without a CHRONY could be counted on one hand. Mostly, that was due to having shot the CHRONY rather than through it! They always replaced it with a new one for $75! I’m on my 4th and it has endured my shooting for the past ten years. But I dropped the little box that shows the readout on the cement floor and the facing came unglued so it looks rather ugly for photo presentations! But IT STILL WORKS and always does its assignments.

Get a chronograph AND USE IT! Otherwise you’re working with blinders on. Anyone who does much shooting can hit a 300 yard target with a .44 Remington. But do they know the bullet’s speed at 300 or its trajectory?

Consider this:

Rifle: 44 Ruger 96/44 lever action: I owned one for ten years, and liked it. It went with me in scouting woods trails and bringing bear bait to various sites. Loading it “hot”, I had confidence in it for those purposes. Here is one typical load, May/2003:

Bullet: Speer 300gr Plated SP; SD = .233; BC = .213

Load: 23 grains of W296

MV: two shots recorded 1598 and 1603. Corrected to MV = 1616 fps/1739 ft-lbs

50 yds = 1469 fps/1437 ft-lbs/ +3.27″

100 yds= 1337 fps/ 1191 ft-lbs/ +4.08″

150 yds= 1224 fps/ 998 ft-lbs/ zero (adequate for a 650 lb animal with a well placed shot.)

200 yds= 1132 fps/ 853 ft-lbs/ -9.85″

250 yds= 1061 fps/ 750 ft-lbs/ -26.49″ (Good for a 500 lb animal with a well placed shot.)

I’m not expecting a novice handloader or one not familiar with handgun cartridges in a rifle to load “his” like I did, but, nonetheless this reveals its potential. This would never have been known without the use of a chronograph.

Brian Pearce, noted writer for Wolfe Publications, and owner of a large ranch in the West with elk on it, has written that a .44 Rem Mag is as capable on elk at 150 yards as a .30-06! And, I can believe that from a study of my results! I don’t know if Brian loaded his like I have, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least!

Knowledge of a bullet’s SD and BC is a serious consideration, and in conjunction with the use of a chronograph can give a complete picture of the ballistic capabilities of a given cartridge and load. Otherwise we are driving in the dark with no lights!

‘Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

One Rifle, One Load – P2

Assuming you’ve read P1, we’ll move along…

Others to be discussed will include the following:

.308 Winchester

.30-06

.300 Weatherby Magnum

.338 Winchester Magnum

.35 Whelen

.416 Remington

And all that will only take one page.

< As told several times, I had four tags in my wallet on this moose hunt: a bull moose, buck whitetail, black bear and wolf. The rifle was my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag loaded with 350gr TSXs at +2700 fps.

Please understand the parameters of what is being proposed. “One rifle, one load” is implying a mixed-bag hunt, or a tour of several countries for a mixed-bag, or a mixed-bag in Africa where convenience or preference would suggest one rifle and one load. So as not to have concerns over which load to use, would be the main motive.

Another might be efficiency in the amount of ammo that would be touted in baggage — to simplify that matter.

Another very important motive is familiarity with the rifle and that particular load. A 180gr premium Nosler Partition is a very lethal offering from a .300 Weatherby Magnum for most big game at 3250 fps. Happy is the hunter who has both familiarity and confidence in what HE can do with such a rifle load — and it’s limitations, if any.

Those are further examples of our intent in this theme should there be questions.

Now, a favorite white-tailed deer hunter’s choice…

The .308 Winchester: If I ever bought a new rifle, this might be it. I’ve never owned one, though I did make reloads for a friend’s BLR in .308 Winchester for bear hunting. A .308 Win was my suggestion as he wanted a new rifle for such sport, and he had some training in the British military in using their .303. The load was a 165gr Hornady SP at about 2500 fps. Even that’s cutting no slack for any black bear at less than 100 yards.

But, of course, the .308 Winnie is capable of more (and less). If I were to own a .308 Win, it would not be to accomplish what three or four other rifles in my cabinet would do as well or better. I went down that endless trail some time ago, where all gun nuts have gone and still do, but with experience and time I realized it was too much duplication. Yes, it briefly satisfied a thirst for something slightly different, but in ballistics they were essentially the same. Somewhere the light came on that I was spending money in a ballistic direction that changed nothing! So I took a more pragmatic approach and less of a “must have that too” plan.

For example: at one time I had three .45-70s: an 1895 Marlin, a NEF single-shot and a Ruger No.1 single-shot. If you’ve read previous blogs, you know that I had a second #1 Ruger in .45-70 that was given a longer throat by a world-class gunsmith so monolithic bullets could be seated longer – which in practice made it the equivalent of a 22″ .458 Win Mag. For a couple of decades of use it was my favorite rifle. Yet on August 10, 2018 it was traded for a real .458 Win Mag in a Ruger No.1 Tropical. So, what I now have in ballistics in one rifle is the equivalent of a BP .45-70 firing 465gr cast bullets at 1500 fps, or a .375 H&H shooting a 300gr at 2500 fps, or a .378 Weatherby at 2950 fps, a 500gr at 1750 to 2300 fps, etc.

The pic above was taken a couple of weeks ago in one of my favorite hunting areas. That’s my Ruger No.1 Topical in .458 Win Mag. I had a bear licence, small game and wolf/coyote tags. The load is a 350gr Speer at a moderate 2500 fps.

Why? The idea was the same ballistics as the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 with the long throat at less recoil. The “Tropical” version is two pounds heavier. Plus it has the Mag-na-ports. All told, for similar ballistics, recoil is reduced by 30% to 43% depending on the load. For example: The Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT would shoot the 500gr Hornady at 2200 fps at 73 ft-lbs recoil . A similar load for the .458 “Tropical” firing the 500gr Hornady at 2200 fps produces “only” 51 ft-lbs recoil. (It will also fire the 500gr at 2300 fps with still less recoil than the .45-70 LT.) So, my .458 Ruger #1 easily covers the ground of any BP rifle, a .375 H&H, a .458 Lott, and more! So, I don’t have to look after, nor feed, a lot of rifles that demand numerous bullets, calibers, styles, and cans of gun powder — it can all be done with ONE!

Since I’ve expounded on all that more than twice, where would a .308 Win fit in? It can do a few things as well as my .458, and perhaps one small thing better: It’s debatable, but just maybe it’s “better” for coyote/wolf at long range.

Yet, that’s not my motive for bringing in the .308 Win for discussion. But with one load it could accomplish quite a bit: from coyote to moose, as long as the range for a big moose doesn’t exceed about 200 yards. What load?

Bullet: 180gr Nosler AccuBond; SD = .271; BC = .507

MV = 2700 fps/2910 ft-bs

100 yds = 2532 fps/2562 ft-bs

150 yds = 2450 fps/2399 ft-lbs

200 yds = 2370 fps/2245 ft-lbs

I’d use the 180 AccuBond over the 180 TTSX because of a better BC at .507 vs .473, and also the Barnes TTSX is much longer, impinging into powder space. In any case, the .308 isn’t a long-rang mature bull moose gun no matter how you slice it. Nor is the .270 Winchester if we take a hard look at its ballistics. My 9.3 x 62 is far superior to both in using the 250gr AB at 2700 fps or the 286gr Nosler Partition at 2640 fps.

The .30-06: Little needs to be said. It’s a half-step up on the .308 Win up to 180grs and a full step beyond that. What has it not done….. Not much. Still, there are better.

The .300 Weatherby Magnum: This one is a full step-and-a half up on the ubiquitous .30-06. Shooting a 220g at 2850 fps, a 200g at 3100 fps, and a 180gr at 3250 fps, it has at least a 200 yard advantage over the .30-06 — whatever the .30-06 can do at any range, the .300 Wby Mag can do 200 yards further. That might count on big bears, elk or bison, etc., that you wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, attempt at particular ranges using the “good-old” .30-06.

The .338 Winchester Magnum: My first was the Sako FS with a 20″ barrel. I loved it until the two-piece stock began to fall apart. I then put it in a fiberglass stock, which cracked. That was replaced under warranty. It then got traded for an M70 in .375 H&H. Never an issue with that rifle except for its length and weight compared to the Sako .338 Win Mag.

My second .338 Win Mag was a Browning A-Bolt with a 26″ barrel. It was very accurate and fast. It attained 2842 fps from th 250gr Hornady SP from a book load. According to plan, I had it re-chambered to a .340 Weatherby. “Everyone” knows about that by now – right? No?

Then I also did some work with our second son in building loads for his Rem 700 Mountain Rifle in .338 Win. It had a 24″ barrel that gave 2735 fps from a 250gr Hornady SP. That was it’s moose load — and it worked!

The .338 Win Mag is very versatile due to the endless weights and styles of projectiles available for the handloader. But which one of those as a “one load” for this capable rifle cartridge?

Depending on the game I’d have on my “bucket list” for my “world tour”, it could be either a premium 225gr or a premium 250gr. Since my thinking would tend toward the larger species, I’d choose a 250gr. That could be used on the smaller stuff like Coues deer and/or the larger beasts such as the Asiatic buffalo. Muzzle velocities around 2700 to 2800 fps would serve nicely to 500 yards or so. But a bullet with a high BC, such as the 250gr AB, is mandated for longer ranges in order to maintain adequate speed for both penetration AND expansion.

The .35 Whelen: This one may not have the number of available bullets in weight and styles as the .338 mags, but still more than adequate all the way to a 310gr Woodleigh. But for an all-purpose load a more aerodynamic shape would be called for. So, again, I’d go with the same as friend Dan Schindler, a 250gr Nosler Partition at 2650 fps/3897 ft-lbs. That will get-er-done using about ten to twelve LESS grains of propellant than the .338 Win for the same effect. He uses 58-59 grains W748 in his custom Whelen. Recoil is a mere 32 -33 ft-lbs compared to about 40 ft-lbs in an 8.5 lb .338 WM.

The .416 Remington: Could this be made into a world-class rifle and cartridge for a bucket list of a dozen from 100 lbs to 3000 lbs using one bullet and load? Sure, let’s give it a try outside the elephant and hippo (it will handle those too with its heavy-weights designed for those tasks, but this is about one load from bambi to buffalo, and anything between.

The obvious choice would be a 350gr premium bullet of relative high BC. Unfortunately, a 350gr in .416 isn’t available with a relatively high BC from the usual sources. Barnes makes a 350gr TSX FB with a .345 BC which is the highest among three sources, so we’ll go with that from a 24″ barrel.

MV = 2630 fps/5375 ft-lbs

100 yds = 2412 fps/4522 ft-lbs

200 yds = 2206 fps/3780 ft-lbs

300 yds = 2009 fps/3136 ft-lbs

400 yds = 1823 fps/2583 ft-bs

500 yds = 1650 fps/2116 ft-lbs (good for a 1500 to 2000 lb soft-skinned animal)*Conditions are African.

This is not a recommendation for shooting a Cape Buff at 500 yards. There are “rules” against that. Nonetheless, it surely demonstrates the capabilities of that great cartridge…. or most of the .416s. Yet my choice might be the .416 Taylor based on the .458 Win case in a light and handi package.

Space and time forbids the examination of all appropriate cartridges for a “One Rifle, One load” in world-wide hunting. But this incomplete exercise may provoke further thought and research into this concept.

‘Til the next….

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

One Rifle, One Bullet – P1

The aim of this article, or perhaps series of blogs, is to explore the potential of such a chosen path to hunting creatures from small to large employing one bullet for each rifle in our safes.

Of course, we know that if every hunter accepted that method of hunting all game, including varmints, it would soon put ammo companies and bullet manufactures out of business. Still, there are some sportsmen who practice this method in hunting with one rifle. We’ve all read or heard of men who’ve done just that the world over — and became famous. The .300 Weatherby and .30-06 are two rifle cartridges that have taken game on every continent in the hands of able riflemen/hunters. Of course, there are multiple weights, styles and construction in .308-caliber bullets available for anything from 110gr to 250gr, but that’s not our theme. The object of this piece is one bullet for each rifle whatever the caliber. What might be the limits?That’s more of a challenge than multiple styles and weights for the same rifle. I think we would agree on that.

Admittedly, I’m thinking more of North American hunting than African with it’s mega-fauna of the DG variety! But even then, some of our suggestions might be effective for most African game, including some of the “Dangerous Five”! For instance, I’ve already made the point several times that a well constructed and shaped 400gr in the .458 Winchester Magnum could be effectively used on all medium to large game throughout the world, including the hazardous African kind with the exception of where a solid would be needed. And a 400gr solid of the right shape, construction and MV would surely work on elephant in a “have to” situation, though this is about one bullet for all one may hunt with any individual rifle. So we’ll get into some details of that concept.

It was the late Finn Aagaard who wrote that he preferred to use “one load” for each of his rifles rather than changing loads for the same rifle for different hunts. I have the same preference and seek to make that possible through handloads even though I try several before settling on one.

In .308-caliber alone, Nosler sells nineteen bullets according to their Reloading Guide 6. Since that guide was published they may have deleted some and added others. And most bullet manufacturers are similar for the most popular calibers. Since I’ve owned ten magnums in .308 caliber, I’ve tried a bunch of brands and weights, but it would be near impossible to try all of them. What I’ve done in regard to the magnums is settle on 180s to 220s, and mostly on the 190gr Hornady and 200gr Nosler Accubond. Today, I’d choose the 200gr AccuBond as a one bullet for the .300 magnums and never look back. It’s suitable for anything I’d want to hunt with a .300 magnum, the .300 Winchester in particular. 2970 fps from a 24″ barrel is quite normal. As a “one load” for anything I’d choose to hunt with a .300 Win Mag, it would be a premium 200gr for moose to 500 yards, or anything smaller, including coyote, wolf, hogs, caribou, bears, white-tails, etc.

That’s only one example of what this topic is all about: One rifle, one load. Th 200gr AccuBond is sleek with a high .588 BC and designed to open at a minimum of 1800 fps, yet tough enough with a bonded core for heavy game. One could do a LOT worse than a .300 Win Mag for all hunting using a single load! True, not the best for varmints or pachyderms, but for anything in between it has had success. Obviously, they have impressed me. I wouldn’t cry if that’s all I had to hunt the world, leaving aside the elephants and possibly the Cape Buff. One rifle, one load. I might switch to the 200gr Partition if I thought that would improve anything — but I seriously doubt it.

<These are examples of two bullets I settled on for their respective cartridges: a 250gr AccuBond for the 9.3 x 62 on the left and a 250gr Speer GS on the right for the .350 Rem Mag. They each have an MV a tad over 2700 fps from their respective rifles. The 250 AccuBond has a better BC at .493 than the 250 GS at only .335 BC. Both, superbly accurate at around 1/2 MOA. (Right click on image, then choose “Open image in new tab”, then click on the new tab for a better view.)

The 250 GS (Grand Slam) was chosen for its toughness, velocity and accuracy. The action of my Rem 673 was short, constraining COL to 2.83″, so space for powder was limited to 62.5 grains (compressed). But that load averaged 2710 fps/4076 ft-lbs at the muzzle. It’s last trip to the range shot three into a neat cloverleaf of .375″. Yes, it went bear hunting. That rifle was traded for something else as it was too heavy for my intentions, and the silly rib on top of the barrel spoiled its aesthetics in my view. Nonetheless, it could with that one load have served for a bunch of hunting I’ve done over the years. My goal in its acquisition was a one rifle, one load, for most of my BG hunts. And it would have made a capable larger varmint rifle in addition to its main chores.

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser has the same positive attributes, plus others. While I’ve tested many loads from 232gr Oryx to 320gr Woodleigh PP, the 250gr Nosler AccuBond has become my all-around bullet of choice. I’ve also used the 286gr Hornady in hunting as well as the 286gr Nosler Partition, and shot bears with each, as well as with the 250 AccuBond, which has developed a Stirling reputation on big, tough game like grizzly. It shoots flat and hits like a ton, literally, at 500 yards! Something the .350 Rem Mag could only do at about 350 yards due to the rather poor BC of the 250gr GS. And I could only get over 2700 fps from the 250 Grand Slam because it was a shorter bullet than the other 250s with a better BC, such as the 250gr Speer HotCor. And all that was due to the short action 700 Rem.

Nothing of that sort for my TIKKA in 9.3 x 62. It has a clip magazine allowing a COL of 3.37″. The 9.3 x 62 case holds 77 – 78 grains of water compared to the .350 Rem case at 74. But the bullets in .358″ must be seated too deeply in the short-action M700 (later called M7) taking away space that should be reserved for powder. I load 70 grains of a slower RL-17 propellant behind the 250gr Accubond (the same as for the 286gr Partition which could also be a single load for the 9.3 x 62, and I do prefer it for moose. It has greater “power” all the way from the muzzle to 500 yards, but it also develops more recoil in that light rifle). The 62.5 grains for the .350 Rem was RL-15, and that was about the limit of compression for RL-15 in that case. In the 9.3 x 62 I can go to 71 grains at 2760 fps for the 250 AB but the accuracy isn’t as good at MOA when 1 grain less gives .44″ at 100 yards quite consistently for three when I do my part. Not that it makes a great difference in a normal hunt of less than 300 yards, but at 500 it might. So, a one bullet, one load for my 9.3 x 62 Mauser is the 250gr AB at 2714 fps avg. into about 1/2 MOA.

Another one rifle is a favorite in Africa, that being the highly regarded .375 H&H. While some use 270s for various plains game, then switch to 300s for ele and Cape buff, I’d go with a premium 300gr for anything and everything. That gives the best that this highly regarded cartridge is able to bring in my estimation. Look at these ballistics from a 24″:

Bullet: 300gr Nosler AccuBond, BC = .485, SD = .305

MV = 2650 fps/ 4678 ft-lbs

250 = 2226 fps/ 3421 ft-lbs (zero)

300 = 2194 fps/ 3205 ft-lbs -4.35″

400 = 2052 fps/ 2805 ft-lbs -18.62″

500 = 1916 fps/ 2445 ft-lbs -41.16″ (good for up to a 1 ton soft-skinned animal) *These results are from typical African temps.

There’s nothing wrong with a .375 H&H as a one rifle, one load for any BG hunting throughout the world. And surely it would work on a leopard as well as any black or brown bear in addition to the big and nasties of Africa.

Want more velocity? Not needed.

All for this time… til the next.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

My Philosophy for Hunting in Changing Times

That there have been changes in hunting practices since the first stone was thrown at a raptor isn’t the subject at hand. But my thoughts on personal game hunting will reflect current and any future prospects toward the end of this piece.

From the outset all hunters should be aware that from recorded history to the present, no time has equalled the present in terms of global threats for survival and political turmoil.

Lest there be those who would argue that point, consider this: Pandemics — never has one equalled Covid-19 for no other reason than the world’s population has never in recorded history attained over seven billion! And most of that is in very crowded spaces which by it’s very nature imposes global threats for the very survival of humanity — now and into the future!

Global politics: That the world is broken in political thinking and action is an every-day reality! Even democracies in the so-called “Free World” can’t solve serious differences! But a grave threat emerges from not only hostile dictatorships, but from the resurgence of extreme “leftists”, and Nazism and Fascism included! Then there’s China… what can we expect from a nation of over one billion that is both openly and covertly taking over Africa, parts of South America and Central America, as well as making inroads into Israel’s techno-industries while partnering with Iran, the arch-enemy of Israel and the West. And that’s only a small snapshot of its global aspirations — while the “West” is dreaming sweet dreams in their slumber!

Of course, there are those who want, and are working for, a global government with a global economic system — that’s coming according to biblical prophecy — it’s simply a matter of how soon. By all appearances it may be sooner than expected or planned for!

Global warfare: It’s not a question of “If”, but when it does WW2 will seem like a Sunday School picnic by comparison! There’s now such technology in nuclear warfare — rockets that can pinpoint not only major cities, but government buildings in those cities from thousands of miles away — and even from “outer space”! And more nations are attempting to join that nuclear club! Happy thoughts about the inherent goodness of mankind has NEVER changed wicked hearts bent on selfish ambitions while destroying others!

If you’ve never had time or thoughts for God, maybe you should, AND START PRAYING RIGHT NOW!

Global economics: The day for the dollar is about over! What’s next? Think!

In the midst of the Earth’s increasing troubles and challenges — is man the saviour? What does history teach? But we’ve never faced, nor has history, what’s on the horizon! Only God knows, and He is Sovereign whether we like it or not… He has already told us, and is in final control — not humans!

In the meantime, what’s my hunting philosophy? Dare I go there with so many ominous events on the horizon that should demand my time, resources and ambitions?

“One day is with the LORD as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day”. He knows what’s coming, and when. In the meanwhile (the next few months or years), I’ll not quit living, sell everything and go sit on top of a mountain until He appears again!

He tells me to “Occupy until I come”. That covers all that I could possibly do that might be healthy, good and worthy. I don’t, and won’t spend extra time and unnecessary energy — mental or physical — on the Covid-19 thing even though the media is TOTALLY preoccupied with it! OR — for that matter — global politics! My hope has never been in any man other than Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour of those who put their hope and trust in HIM alone!

“Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God the Father” – the Apostle Paul in writing of the end times in regard to those who have denied Him, or lied about Him, when they’ll hear these words “Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you!”

So, I pray for family, other loved ones and friends — including hurting people who don’t know where to turn or the answer to their pain while suffering in silence. I read my bible and mediate on its message, and share with those ready to listen — which is a growing minority in 2020 in the Western World. That’s in huge contrast with the rest of the world, including China!

On a more “earthy” level, I make reloads for my .458 Win and 9.3 x 62 Mauser, shooting both and a .22LR at the range with the faint hope they’ll still be used in collecting some game worthy of their aptitudes. Plus, I still immensely enjoy roaming backcountry with a “fire-stick” over my shoulder! Ya never know… something might show up that I want to point it at… and maybe squeeze the trigger!

Let’s see… Right now I’ve a bear tag, wolf tag, small game licence… and God willing I’ll add a buck whitetail tag!

What about you?

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser vs the 7 Rem Mag in Versatility

The issue of versatility was what I had in mind when choosing a mid-bore over a sub-medium.

I’ve owned several of each, but all were sub-mediums (up to .30-caliber) until 1988 when I traded a  new M70 in .300 Winchester Magnum for a new Sako FS in .338 Winchester Magnum. Did I ever regret that? No, never. I had been a handloader for seven years prior to that trade and knew quite well what to expect from a short-barrelled .338 Win Mag. It turned out that my expectations were relatively accurate, but conservative. What I wanted was a handier package than the relatively long and heavy M70 in .300 Win Mag. The Sako was much shorter, lighter, and much more versatile and powerful than the M70.

That defined who I was, and still am. I like relatively short, compact, bigger bores with more potential and versatility. From that point on I went still bigger in rifle bores. The next was a Marlin in .45-70. But I never completely abandoned sub-mediums.

At this point, it’s fairly obvious that “versatility” needs clarification, and in reference to rifles and their cartridges in particular. There should be little doubt that experienced hunters of a variety of medium, big and large game, including some large predators, will understand the concept of certain rifles and cartridge combinations having greater versatility depending on the diversity of game being pursued under varied conditions.

Sometimes the best way to understand the use of a descriptive term is in using a thesaurus, which is different than a dictionary in that it submits a series of words that mean the same thing in the same context. Webster’s Thesaurus presents the following words as substitutes for “versatility”: flexibility; utility; adjustability; adaptability. So what we’re discussing here in reference to sporting/hunting rifles and their caliber-cartridges is how flexible and adaptable they might be in a variety of settings. That might be sheep on mountains, moose in the alders or Cape buffalo in the Zambezi Delta — I’m sure you get the picture.  

I’ve said that the new, heavy and long .300 Win Mag in a M70 Winchester was traded for a new .338 Win Mag in a lighter, handier, more versatile package — and more powerful to boot. And that was my introduction to medium-bores, or, if you will, “mid-bores”.

In what way then is the 9.3 x 62 Mauser more versatile – if it truly is – than the 7 Rem Mag, which is the number one most handloaded magnum cartridge?

We’ll have a look at that, and it needs to be a fair, unbiased evaluation. And to assure the audience that I have some knowledge of each, three 7mm Remington Magnums have been owned and handloads developed for each, plus another belonging to my son-in-law. Also, I’ve owned a 7mm Weatherby Magnum that was similar in ballistics. As to a 9.3 x 62 Mauser, I currently own one and it’s the one and only that has consumed an inordinate amount of time and effort to unleash the best that it has to offer.

While I developed many handloads for each of the 7mm magnums, tested them at the range and toted them in the field, I shot no live game with the 7 Rem Mag, but I did with the 7 Weatherby Magnum. The load for the Weatherby that saw hunting was the 175gr Nosler Partition over a full dose of RL-22, ignited by WLRM primers. 

<(That’s the 7 Wby Magnum and the bear shot with the 175gr Partition at 3000 fps MV.)

That was during the years I hunted bear in the northeast of our province with Norm Easto as outfitter and guide. I was seated on the side of a ridge with the bait setup about 65 yards below. It was the first day of the hunt, and also in a new location for me. After refreshing the bait around 2:30 pm, I found a good spot to sit on the ground with some cover in front. I didn’t have to wait long as the bear came in to the bait about 3 pm. I shot it with the 175gr NP between neck and shoulder as it was sniffing the bait at around a 25* angle presentation from me. It was a “bang-flop”, raised it’s head once and that was it! Of course there was complete penetration from the neck-shoulder juncture to the offside flank.  

That doesn’t make me (or anyone else for that matter) an “expert” on the 7 magnums, or the Weatherby in particular, and by association the Remington. However, I do know what to expect from either in ballistic terms. My first 7 Remington was the BAR (Browning semi-auto) with a 24″ barrel that replaced the M70 .30-06 (that story has been told a few times already); the next was the Ruger No.1 with a 26″ barrel, and the last was a Remington 700 LH bolt gun with a 24″ tube. The Ruger No.1 would fire a 175gr at over 3000 fps, and the 24″ Rem 700 made 2940 fps from 175’s. The Weatherby had a 24″ and made 3000 fps from the 175 NP (the load mentioned in the bear hunt).

So I think I have a pretty realistic understanding of what those two 7 magnums were capable of at the top end. Those loads were suitable for any North American game, or equivalent in any other part of the globe, with some qualifiers: range, presentation and certain dangerous game. Some experienced guides and outfitters wouldn’t recommend them for the so-called “big bears” under all conditions, and I’d feel the same for certain large game under all conditions, such as a large bull moose beyond 300 yards at a poor angle with a lake or ravine close by.

I’m a firm believer in Bob Hagel’s dictum: ” Don’t take the rifle and load that will work in the best of conditions, but use the one that will work in the WORST of conditions” (emphasis mine).

And that’s where I draw the line of separation between sub-mediums and medium-bores, assuming each to be at, or near, the top end of ballistic capabilities for the respective cartridges.

In simple terms: The 7 mms (.284-caliber), no matter the size and capacity of their cases, are still and only  capable of firing .284″ bullets — which, in normal use, limits them to 175 – 180gr projectiles at the top end — and in my view the best for larger game. The .30-calibers (magnums) are better in normal use for the same large game in that they can push 200 – 220gr out their respective muzzles at the same speeds (about 3000 fps). Then, of course, each (7 mm and .30-cal) has a veritable proliferation of lighter bullets for smaller stuff. That’s their strength. But their limits are at the top end, not at the bottom. 

The 7 Remington Magnum and .338 Win Mag share the same parent case, the .458 Win Mag, which in turn is based on a shortened .375 H&H blown out. The distinction between the 7mm and the .338 is neck size. The .338 can fire bullets of a larger diameter that also makes them heavier. That’s the whole point of a larger caliber using the same basic case. For instance, we see that in the .30-06 case being necked up to .358 (the .35 Whelen). The goal of Col. Whelen and James Howe was to produce greater ballistic effect than the .30-06 in using heavier bullets — that also made the cartridge more efficient in the use of the approximate same amount of powder. With best handloads in a 24″ .30-06 it can make around 3300 ft-lbs from a 180 to 200gr in .30-caliber. The Whelen, on the other hand, can make upwards of 4000 ft-lbs from a heavier bullet with a 36% larger cross-sectional-area!

This isn’t about the .30-06 vs the .35 Whelen, but to show how in moving up in caliber to mid-bores, even in using the same parent case, can significantly improve ballistic results. Of course, moving to a smaller caliber in the same parent case can significantly alter ballistic results in a negative sense if the intent is to shoot large game. Despite some uninformed arguments to the contrary, the .270 Win will never equal it’s parent, the .30-06, in ultimate ballistic results, no matter how it’s measured.

The 9.3 x 62 Mauser isn’t based on any other cartridge, though it’s similar in some ways to the .35 Whelen — but they have different critical specs. The .35 Whelen will hold around 72 grs of water to the mouth of the case, and the 9.3 x 62 will hold 77 – 78 grs depending on who makes the cases. When each is loaded with their best propellants to the same psi, and using equal length barrels from the same manufacturer, the 9.3x 62 Mauser has an advantage of 300 – 450 ft-lbs KE at the muzzle using their traditional common-weight bullets for each: a 250gr for the Whelen and 286gr for the Mauser, wherein their MVs will be near identical. From a 22″ in each that will be between 2600 to 2650 fps for the Whelen shooting the 250gr and 2600 to 2650 fps for the Mauser firing a 286gr. Obviously, those are best handloads in each.

But this comparison isn’t exactly about two nearly identical cartridges. No one will dispute that the 9.3 x 62 Mauser is potentially a much more potent cartridge than the “Big 7 Remington”, if they are aware of the facts. Rather, flexibility and adaptability is what we’re discussing.

In previous articles on “Long-Range Shooting of Big Game”, the 7 Rem Mag was used as one example. Depending on a number of factors, but assuming its best performance in ballistics and accuracy, and who is doing the shooting — that is assuming near perfection in performance — the 175gr Nosler Partition at 2950 fps MV from a 24″ barrel should be adequate for a 750 to 1000 lb soft-skinned animal at 400 yards where KE will be little more than 2000 ft-lbs with a broadside hit to the vitals. The animal should be dead within a few steps. However, should it be a 1/4 toward or away shot, reduce all that by approximately 25%. At least in our thinking and preparation we should not have expectations beyond reality. No matter how you slice it, 2000 ft-lbs of energy from a “normal” rifle and cartridge (.270 Win to .300 Win as examples) has been regarded, from experience, as suitable for an approximate 1000 lb game animal, assuming good bullets and a “good hit”. 

And, of course, my 9.3 x 62 Mauser will do all that and quite a bit more. That’s were it’s versatility comes in. Burning about the same amount of propellant as the 7 Rem Mag behind a heavier and wider bullet, and due to the bore size (9.3 = .366″ cal.) it is a much more efficient cartridge, i.e. = producing about 900 ft-lbs more energy at the muzzle and over 2100 ft-lbs at 500 yards.

<(This was recently recorded at 15 feet from the muzzle of my 9.3 x 62 Mauser. No, it wasn’t from the 250gr AccuBond, but the 286gr Nosler Partition.)

Of course, KE is not all there is to it, as we’ve delved more deeply into that matter. Momentum and cross-section area of the bullet (bullet diameter) are all significant players as well.

The point of this essay is to demonstrate why I switched to mid-bores (.338 – .375) over sub-mediums (.243 – .308) over thirty years ago: They are more efficient, can do what anything less can do… and much more. It’s that simple.  The cost might be in increased “felt” recoil — but not necessarily as that depends on several other factors in addition to ballistics… the principle ones being the weight of the rifle, stock shape and fit, and the strength, fitness and experience of the shooter.

“The point of all this is that if you intend to use the same cartridge for shooting all classes of game under all hunting conditions, you should realize its limitations and not expect it to perform reliably beyond those limitations, whether handloaded or factory ammunition.” — BOB HAGEL in Game Loads and Practical Ballistics for the American Hunter — a WOLFE  Publication.

The quote from Hagel has been the emphasis of these articles over the past several weeks. But it  also is a further comment on the principle highlighted in the current theme of why I moved on to mid-bores over sub-mediums.

Small bores are for small creatures: I’ll always have one, but let’s not try to make them into something they’re not!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Correction: In the previous blog the 175gr/7mm bullet was cited as having an SD of .301. That was a typo or mistake. It should have been .310. I tried to correct that after publication, but for some inexplicable reason that was denied by WORD PRESS. I have yet to have an explanation. Sorry for that error.

Long Range Shooting of Big Game – P2

The following equipment is absolutely necessary in shooting big game at long range. And that’s in addition to all that has been presented in P1.

I’ve mentioned that “long range” for myself is any distance beyond 300 yards. For some hunters it might be far less. We must know the limits of our ability and confidence.

(That’s 350 yards to the top of the 300 yard berm on the horizon. Left click on pic for a better view.)

But if we intend or plan to shoot game animals at whatever range they might present a clear shot, say 400 yards to 750 yards, then we will need more, much more, that bravado! In addition to sane judgement we will need:

1) The right rifle

2) The right rifle scope.

3) A chronograph.

4) A range finder.

5) A spotting scope.

6) Binoculars.

Leave out any one of those factors and we will not only reveal a lack of knowledge, but also of sound judgement.

The right rifle is the one right for me or you, and they will be distinct in caliber and perhaps different in configuration. A number of rifle cartridges were briefly discussed in P1, along with some of the rifles chambered for them. 

<(My former CZ550 in .458 Win Mag)

The .458 Winchester Magnum was mentioned as a possible long -range rifle cartridge for myself in the far north of our Province of Ontario, if moose were the target animal. Yet I recognise that it would not be for the majority of others.  At our range this morning a couple of hunter-shooters were curious about my “elephant gun”. I’ve explained to quite a few members over the past few years that a .458 Win Mag makes an excellent medium game cartridge for North America if you make your own handloads. When it’s pointed out that it can be loaded like a mild to hot .45-70, and show them some of those loads, their eyes widen and ears pick up!

I briefly referred to the 400gr Barnes X-Bullet at near 2600 fps as a possible long range number for moose to 600 yards. Because of its claimed .457 BC it would still be making over 1600 fps, enough for some expansion, according to Barnes promotion of their “X” and “TSX” bullets.

But all that is THEORY until proven! I never expect to be shooting any live game at 600 yards during the rest of my earthly existence, and never have, so it’s a moot point. And I don’t have access to a range that allows shooting beyond 300 yards. But if I were 34 instead of 1/2 century older, I might like to have the opportunity to prove all that to myself as well as for the benefit of others. Still, it will continue to ONLY be theory until someone comes up with a big game 400gr bullet in .458-cal and a BC of .457!

In general, I much prefer to prove through experience that what I write about is more than theory. I want it to be factual. But the bare truth is that with the proliferation of very sleek and high numbered BC big-game bullets today, we (most of us) can’t test them all — and certainly NOT at ranges beyond about 500 yards. So, I write theoretically sometimes with the hope that someone “out there” will be able to confirm or deny that certain bullets will work as promoted at near or far ranges.

The 350gr TSX in .458-cal was loaded for a moose hunt in N. Ontario in 2008, as previously mentioned. But I was a bit “on the horns of a dilemma” as to it’s actual ballistic coefficient. That matters! I couldn’t understand, when talking with “Ty” at Barnes, how the 350gr X-Bullet in .458″ could have a BC of .402 with one groove and when it was reintroduced with three grooves the BC was drastically downgraded to .278. That’s a BC of merely 69% of its former value! So, what’s with that Ty? Something smelled “fishy” to me (and I should know as I’ve dressed out many thousands of haddock, pollock, cod, ect. in younger years as the third son of a commercial fisherman in Eastern Canada)! So I went to work at our limited 300 yard range to do some testing of that bullet in my CZ550, .458 Winchester Magnum.

First, a chronograph was used to ascertain the MV. Then that load was shot at 100 yards to establish POI, followed by shots at 300 yards to determine POI. From the drop at 300 yards it was easy to calculate the approximate BC of the 350gr TSX. I also used data from the Accurate Reloading Forum provided by “Michael 458” in testing that bullet at his home range. He provided MV and velocity at target. All matters considered, my calculations gave a BC of .328 for the 350gr TSX, while Michael’s was higher still.

This past summer I tested the 350 TSX in my Ruger Tropical in .458, and the following MV was recorded at 15 feet from the muzzle. Corrected to MV that would be 2780 fps. Employing a BC of .328 we get the following results to 500 yards:

MV = 2780 fps/6005 ft-lbs/ -1.60″/ 236 MTE

100 = 2513 fps/4908 ft-lbs/ +3.36″/ 193 MTE

200 = 2262 fps/3975 ft-lbs/ +2.78″/ 156 MTE 

300 = 2025 fps/3186 ft-lbs/ -4.63″/ 125 MTE

400 = 1804 fps/2528 ft-lbs/ -20.5″/ 99 MTE

500 = 1601 fps/1991 ft-lbs/ -47.2″/ 78 MTE (good for a 1500 to 2000 lb soft-skinned animal) 

Recoil: 48 ft-lbs from the Ruger with 5 cartridges in a stock “sock” @ 10.65 lbs, and Mag-na-ported

Ambient conditions: elevation @ 1150 ft. Temp: 50*F. 58% RH.

I could live with that and be “happy as a haddock in the Atlantic”.

That was to show what could be done with a .458 Win Mag if “want to try something different” was bigger than what the writers endlessly rehash… you know, “You need a .270 or .30-06. But if you want more, there’s always a .338 Win Mag.”

Where theory and reality might clash is when the trigger is squeezed in the field. Happy is the hunter whose theory is confirmed and not devastated!

In truth, more big game have been “harvested” with numbers like the .30-30, .308 Win, .270, 7mms, .30-06, and .300 magnums than anything else on the N.A. continent. Yet for the travelling sportsman who has a few years in the field, a new rifle firing a different cartridge adds zest to a sagging enthusiasm.

Where does one hunt and shoot game that stretches bullet trajectory to, say, 750 yards? And how do we know it’s 750 and not 450 without the use of a range finder ? You know, it’s always the fish that got away that’s much bigger than any in the boat!

And how do we assess the size and sex of the game without a rifle scope ideal for such hubris?  Having more than a few years in the field should have taught us something about our ability no matter the power and cost of the rifle with its ancillary equipment! Does a $2500 rifle scope decked out with adjustments fore and aft, on top and both sides, qualify us to pull the trigger on our custom super-magnums on live game at 750 to 1000 yards? I’ve owned some very accurate rifles with handloads and decent scopes, but I’ve never been where such a shot was wise or even possible. A broadside adult moose is a large target, as also some others are, but to stake my reputation only on the Long Range Internet forums would be a grave mistake in my view. Yet there appears to be a certain growing number who sacrifice the joy of mere hunting on God’s earth for the sake of antler points at unforgivable distances, all with the intent of making a name for themselves.  “And I want you to know that I shot that ram at 458 long yards according to my Zeiss range finder. At the shot he fell off the cliff and tumbled for 350 yards to the bottom… and the horns were not damaged… see for yourself! Am I not wonderful?”

A spotting scope: Only if needed, otherwise it will become added weight and take up space in a backpack. It’s intended as a complement to the rifle scope when range denies important details. A few years ago I watched a video of a black bear hunt on Vancouver Island. Two men were involved, but only one was the shooter. The other used a spotting scope. An excellent shot was made on an approximate 350 lb bear at just over 500 yards. All was set up prior to the shot across a valley. The bear immediately disappeared into thick bush and fell into a ravine that took over two hours to retrieve. All of the equipment was specialised, including the rifle… AND the shooter! He had fired OVER 1000 shots using the same rifle and load in PRACTICE! 

Binoculars: I consider them optional for long-range shooting if a spotting scope is on board. Yet, I’ve actually used binoculars a lot in hunting – over bear baits in particular. For bait hunting bear, when they might only show up at the last dying legal minutes of the hunt, a good 7×35 or 8×40 are tops in my experience. 

As to a recommendation of a rifle and cartridge for the dedicated long-range hunter-shooter, he/she doesn’t need my recommendation, but it would be hard to beat something in a super .338 magnum, such as a .340 Weatherby, .338 RUM or .338 Lapua. And that’s due to a couple of factors: the SD of .338 projectiles, hence also their BCs. They also can be pushed at decent speeds without major physical trauma to the body. 

< (That was my .340 Wby Mag in hand.)

In writing on “Long-Range Hunting”, I couldn’t have stated my feelings better than Dan Schindler, Founder, Owner and Manager of Paragon School of Sporting Inc.. He’s become a friend through frequent correspondence. Dan is a trainer of trainers in sporting clays and wing shooting, as well as in rifle.

“Collect all the gear you want and be rightfully proud of what you have purchased. Seriously, good on you. But have no delusions about that gear assuring you of a 1 shot, 1 kill at very long distances. That responsibility falls directly on your shoulders and should weigh heavily as you contemplate pulling the trigger.”

Well said Dan!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

Long Range Shooting of Big Game – P1

The topic is shooting BIG GAME at long range, not varmints or targets at long range. I was recently on a well known forum to do some research on the Long Range section. Almost without exception it was focused on small bore target and varmint cartridges and rifles, commencing with various .223 calibers up to the 6.5s, with the 6’s and 6.5 Creedmoors dominating.

No doubt that some .264 calibers are adequate for smaller, non dangerous game, like whitetail deer at 300 and perhaps 400 yards, especially in numbers like the .264 Winchester. However, for the slower 6.5s, such as the 6.5 x 55 and even the Creedmore, I’d not stretch the range much beyond 400 for large northern bucks.

Depending on the bullet used, a 140gr SST Hornady at 2725 fps from a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 24″ barrel, as one example, has enough “put down” for a 400 to 500 lb game animal at 400 yards. For a dangerous predator like bear, I’d one-half that. So it’s without any doubt a capable deer cartridge at relatively long range. For a large elk or moose, and even a good bear, I’d choose something with more than 1300 ft-lbs at 400 yards. The .264 Winchester Magnum will do at 550 yards (same energy) what the 6.5 Creed can do at 400. I think those two are more or less representative of the 6.5 clan.

Some will of course object, claiming the 6.5 Swede has terminated many moose. But please give me the conditions including the ranges. Sure, you could terminate any moose with a .22LR, 40gr solid to the brain! I watch quite a few videos of hunting big game both here and foreign. Rarely is the cartridge mentioned. I just watched Jim Shockey take a brown bear in Russia, as well as a mountain sheep similar to those in the Rockies, all with the same rifle but never once was the cartridge mentioned!

These 5 Mini-Mags where fired from my CZ455 in .22LR one week ago at our range at 100 yards. They would “stop” a bear hit in the brain! I’ve carried a .22 LR for small game and have little doubt I could deter or stop a bear with it in a “have to” situation at 15 feet. That’s NOT to say it would be a sane choice for bear defensive purposes >

For me, long range hunting and shooting of big game and dangerous predators begin with the 7mm Magnums, and the 7 Remington Magnum in particular (The Weatherby is similar with perhaps 50 to 100 fps advantage depending on barrel lengths, psi and bullets used.)

I bypass the .270 Winchester, though it’s a decent long range cartridge for whitetails, mule deer, etc., yet for large bull elk, moose or larger bears at 400+ yards I’d suggest the 7 magnums as minimum. Yeah, I know there will be those who have killed elk (what size and sex?) at 600 yards using O’Conner’s favorite in the West. I’d consider that “stunt” shooting! And the claim is with a 130gr !!! I seriously doubt that anyone with a modicum of ballistic knowledge (and experience) CHOOSES a 130gr out of a .270 Win for serious long range shooting of a mature bull elk these days!

Consider the following:

Cartridge: .270 Winchester

Barrel: 24″

Bullet: 130gr Nosler Partition (SD = .242; BC = .416

MV @ 3158 fps (right out of Nosler’s #6 manual)

400 yds = 2317 fps/ 1550 ft-lbs/ 22.5 MTE (from 400 lbs to 600 lbs depending on shot placement)

500 yds = 2130 fps/ 1310 ft-lbs/ 19 MTE (from 350 lbs to 500 lbs depending on shot placement)

600 yds = 1952 fps/ 1100 ft-lbs/ 16 MTE (from 300 lbs to 400 lbs depending on shot placement)*

*Those are estimates based on real ballistic results from the 130gr Nosler Partition at the given ranges, assuming body shots, not central-nervous-system (CNS) hits. It’s possible, of course, for the bullet to strike the spine (spinal cord) and drop the animal where it stands without killing it. At those ranges (long range) that would typically be a “lucky” shot, not the result of precision shooting. It happens, but it shouldn’t be taken for granted or planned that way.

So while the .270 Win might be adequate for cow elk and/or not fully mature elk of 300 to 500 lbs at 500 yards or so, it certainly would not be close to a first choice for myself as a long range rifle/cartridge for game that exceeds 500 lbs. Therefore, as stated, I’d recommend a 7 Rem Mag over a .270 Win any day of the hunting season for big game that might involve long range shooting. But then, my personal choice in a sub-medium would be more than the 7 magnums. That’s up-coming.

My Ruger No.1 in 7 Rem Mag (Similar to pic on left but with a 26″ barrel.) would fire the 175gr Nosler Partition at 3015 fps. In other words, that would equal the .270 Win shooting a 140gr Partition in muzzle velocity. And, of course, the 175gr, 7mm has an SD of .301 compared to the 140gr, .277″ at .261. Not only is there little comparison in energy (despite some, who ought to know better, claiming the 7 Rem Mag has little to offer over the .270 Win!) but momentum favors the 7 RM by 25% at the muzzle which increases down range because of a superior BC of .519 for the 7mm over .432 for the 140gr NP in .277″. 

However that may be, the number one common cartridge in use for long range shooting of all BG from 300 lbs to 1000 lbs (where one rifle and load would be chosen) is the .300 Winchester Magnum, or it’s equivalent. Personally speaking, a .300 Win Mag has been, and would be, the minimum choice for the potential long range shooting — to 500 +yards — of a mature Canadian bull moose. When I chose to take my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag to Northern Ontario with a bull tag for moose in my pocket, loaded with the 350gr TSX at 2750 fps, my backup rifle was a .300 Winchester Magnum.  

But certain conditions apply: If a pro guide or outfitter is involved in a place like Alaska, then a long range shot would NOT be permitted on a mature moose or brown bear, as a couple of examples. So, we’re talking hunts by residents of a state or province where such restrictions don’t apply. In a DIY hunt for elk or caribou, for instance, the hunter is on his own to make such decisions. And, without doubt, he’s already aware of potential scenarios. If he’s acquainted with the region of the hunt, he should know in advance what his rifle and load is capable of, and what he is capable of in its use under all conditions.  

If I should ever make that trip again to N. Ontario for a bull moose, I’d have to be ready for a shot at 25 yards to 600 yards. That could be my current Ruger No.1 in .458, but not the 350gr TSX even at near 2800 fps. Why? Because it has a relatively poor BC of only around .300 (Barnes says .278. I think it’s a bit more from former tests — but that depends on several factors including the barrel.) For that bullet to expand — which it must to produce a killing shot — it needs at least 1600 fps impact, which it has somewhere between 400 yds and 450 yds. But if the bull is at 550 yds, what then? The bullet I’d actually use is the former 400gr X-bullet with a BC of .457, and an MV from my 24″ Ruger No.1 of nearly 2600 fps (2590 fps in actual tests). At 600 yds it should still be making over 1600 fps and about 2300 ft-lbs. But the drop from a zero of 250 yards is about 7 feet (-83″). All of which assumes that I’d have a range finder, little wind and a firm kneeling or standing rest. In other words, the rifle and load might be capable, but would the shooter be?

That was to simply show that a rifle and load capable for the heaviest target (BG, not DG) from 25 yards to 600 yards imposes on the shooter that he has adequate control, knowledge and experience as a rifleman and hunter. It’s totally irresponsible on the part of ANY hunter just to fling bullets into the air        (“Hail Marys”) hoping that one will connect with the animal in the right place. We must have a reasoned confidence that ANY shot, close or far, will hit the animal — at the very least — in a part that will put it on the ground within a reasonable distance, allowing it to be retrieved. Perhaps a “finisher” will need be applied at closer range.

I would only take a 500 – 600 yard shot if that were all that conditions allowed. Getting closer should always be a goal — but idealism may cause the loss of one chance in a thousand if the animal is spooked by the hunter’s movements, or decides to depart into nearby timber or bush or a lake (you can’t lawfully shoot them while swimming).

Be assured, that none should just assume they can make “that shot” without adequate preparation through knowledge of the bullet’s trajectory and exit velocity from the muzzle of the rifle, as well as realistic practice with BOTH rifle and load!

Til the next… Theory vs Experience. (I believe in both, and practice both. And so do you if you know that man actually landed and walked on the moon! And so do we if we’ve ever earnestly prayed and literally had those prayers answered in a way that confirmed our faith that God is real and both hears and answers the prayers of those who love and trust Him. Mere theology? Not if it works!) For instance: Have you used a chronograph to confirm your expectations of long range shooting? That too will be discussed next time.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

How to Hunt a Black Bear – P4

So far in this series, we’ve considered: 1) Baiting; 2) Calling, and 3) Still hunting in P3.

This time we look at: 4) Spot-n-stalk, and 5) Hound hunting. In addition, further observations and conclusions will be made. 

SPOT-N-STALK: This I’ve only done during the Calling episode described in P3. And it was very brief. I’d started to follow the big bear I’d called in before deciding to let it go rather than shoot it in the rump. Otherwise, I’ve never seen a non-wounded bear that I could track.

This is more of a type of bear hunting in the west of North America in more open country, such as the foothills of the Rockies or Vancouver Island with huge swaths of clear cut timber. It could conceivably be done in other areas where clear cutting has taken place, or on thousands of acres of open agriculture land with intermittent blocks of timber or bush. I know it’s done occasionally in western Canadian provinces.

As the term suggests, it’s a matter of sighting a bear in whatever conditions and being able to track it with the hope of closing the distance which makes possible a clear shot. It also involves a possible offhand shot if that’s the only one available should the bear be moving, or will quickly disappear interminably into thick timber or a ravine.

(It would have been possible to have seen and tracked a bear here in the open ^ as there were several old clear cuts. There were also huge piles of bear scat and wolf scat. I had licences for each as well as a moose ticket and one for a buck whitetail. However, my mission was a bull moose in N. Ontario. That was my CZ550 in .458 over my shoulder loaded with 350gr Barnes TSX’s at 2750 fps.) 

Some hunters prefer this style as it seems more “natural”. That is, it’s the traditional form of what has been termed “fair chase”. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as those hunters don’t become “snobbish” and look down on, or despise, others who prefer a more practical approach, as in baiting or with hounds.

With increasing costs of all forms of hunting, and limited time compared to those who “live off the land” where fauna may habituate, spot-n-stalk will suite few whose lives are consumed by urban living in big cities.

HOUND HUNTING:  I’ve never done it and never intend to! I don’t keep hounds and have never even owned a pet poodle! Plus the fact, it appears, from what I’ve read and watched on video, that you need to be somewhat superhuman to keep up with the “traffic” of bear, hounds and professionals who do this day-in-and-out! NO THANKS at any age, but specifically past 60 years or so! Then, I don’t like the idea of shooting little bears out of trees, which most appear to be! 

However, a huge bear was shot in the area of my traditional bait setup — done so by hound hunters! So it must work for some. But they killed “my bear”! It dressed out at 568 lbs! That’s about a 650 lb black bear when alive and feeding on the goodies I presented at my bait site!

No resentment though… it was legal and fair chase… sort of.                                                                       

(Left click on photo for a better view. This was the site where the 650 lb bear was in frequent attendance. But he was nocturnal.)

The amount of equipment and costs for a professional operation is astounding: 4×4 pickups, ATVs, radios and radio collars for the hounds, GPS’s, and fit men to operate all that in addition to keeping track of a half-dozen hounds, or more, staggers my imagination… I can’t begin to relate! 

Short-barrelled lever-action rifles, or big-bore handguns and 12ga with slugs would seem best under a tree if there’s a bear “up there”… But if it weighs +400 lbs, don’t stand too close to the tree!

It probably is for those with “ants in their pants”!  

There you have it: Five styles or methods of black bear hunting. Which would you choose? Tell me if you’d like to, or if you’ve done so. 

Coming up for the balance of September will be a presentation on long-range shooting of game and predators. 

A few days ago, I was reminded by a friend that the so-called “big bears” (grizzly) have been killed by the 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher a hundred years ago. Of course, precise details were not available, but as I checked that idea using my MTE formula, and adding a few more fps than the 6.5 Mannlicher…, I conceded that it could be done using a good 160gr at 2400 fps at close range.  Of course, “close range” is more like 25 feet, not long range at 500 yards (1500 feet)! So, long-range shooting of game is how far according to you? I consider 300 yards, and beyond, long range. But the longest range that I’ve ever shot anything was groundhog at 340 yards, and it’s much more challenging to successfully kill a 5 lb animal with a single shot at 340 yards than, say, an elk at twice that distance, assuming adequate ballistics for each! 

To add some spice to the notion of killing a “large predator”, such as a grizzly, with a puny 6.5 x 55 Swede, of which I’ve owned the grand total of two, and handloaded each, let me say that after a “fiasco” involving the hunt of a big Northern Whitetail buck with mine, I never used it again! And I’ll explain why in my next blog. 

Yet bear have been terminated using the lowly .22 LR! So was a lion finished off in Africa with the use of a single-shot from the same, as was a wild African cow with Texas-like horns by the same rifle and hunter! So there are exceptions, sometimes in the extreme, to what we think we know!

Long range is how far, and under what conditions? What is your longest successful shot on a predator or BG animal? As you mull that over, I’ll be writing my thoughts and prognostications.

<It’s about 425 yards from where I stood for this photo to the farthest corner of the bog where the skyline of trees sharply drops and appears smallest .

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL