.35 Caliber Medium Rifles – P2

Depending on the hunting/shooting/rifle/firearms Internet forums we may visit, and the persons who frequent them, opinions on “Mediums”, or mid-bores will vary anywhere from  .243 (6 mm) to whatever suits their fancy. Several forums have no guidelines in that regard. I recently visited the 24hr forum where the .270 Win was being discussed as a “medium”! It was apparent that the contributors were unaware that mid-bores and “mediums” were the same, and the .270 caliber has never been identified in literature or by “professionals” as a mid-bore, or medium.

Traditionally, any magnum-type .35, including the .35 Newton, has been viewed as a “medium”. Historically, when British Big Bores ruled in India and Africa, even a .40-caliber was considered a “medium” bore.

Having, therefore, (as explained in P1) commenced my own view of mid-bores or mediums at .35-caliber of the more powerful sort, I finally relented to include the more potent .338 cartridges as reviewed in P1. This time around we’ll take an overview of the more robust .35 cartridges, including best handloads. The standard is the same in kinetic energy at the muzzle as in .338-caliber, or nearly so.

From best handloads, I’ve personally attained  2635 fps from 250s in my 22″ .35 Whelen,  so I include that one as the potential is there from a 24″ to 26″ barrel. So also from a 22″ .350 Rem Mag, which actually exceeded those numbers from the Whelen by 70 fps or so.

Others to be included, based on data from a few of my reloading books, are: the .358 Norma Magnum and the .358 STA (which also represents several “wildcats”). Nosler’s No.6 manual includes the .358 STA, but Hornady’s 9th and Barnnes’ No.4 do not, so I’d guess the STA has fallen from grace by the general shooting public that favors mid-bores. Nonetheless, I’ll include it as it does represent quite a few “out there” who use it plus several “cats” of its kind. At least that’s my informed thinking, though the .35 Whelen overshadows it by a wide margin in actual usage. Likely that’s due to the Whelen being plenty in “knockdown” power, also while being very practical in doing so.

The .35 Whelen: It has remained a favorite among the cognoscente since its inception in 1922, and was made legit by Remington in 1988. During the ensuing decades it was highly respected by those chasing the big bears of Alaska as well as their over-size moose. In the rest of the continent it found additional usage on deer, black bear, caribou, elk and likely anything else that one could shoot with a rifle. Handloading was the only game for those whose appreciation compelled them to make their own. Of course, the ubiquitous .30-06 provided the cases, just as it did for James Howe who created it in collaboration with Col. Whelen. Quality bullets were available in several weights and forms, but not in abundance. Same with powders.

Remington changed the rules when they made it legitimate in 1988 at SAAMI, and introduced both live ammo for hunters and brass cases for handloaders. Their factory product in ammo was in the form of a 250gr RN at a claimed 2400 fps, and a 200gr SP at a claimed 2675 fps. Soon protests arose from among the prospective buyers that Remington overlooked loading a good 250gr SP, that would be much better for shooting large game at a proposed 300+ yards. Some months went by, and finally Remington came out with a 250gr SP CorLoc at, again, a claimed 2400 fps/3197 ft-lbs. No one among the savvy .35 handloaders were ecstatic by such meager results. Even James Howe and Whelen himself were getting +2500 fps from 250s, which was considered a standard load for a 250gr. Why build a .358-cal cartridge based on the .30-06 case that would do little better in energy than the .30-06 itself? The raison-d’etre for the .35 Whelen was to give a decided improvement over the .30-06!

My experience with a .35 Whelen in a Rem 7400 (semi) was that with improved powders than was available in 1922, I could quite easily attain 2600 fps/3752 from its 22″ barrel without problems of any kind. The late Finn AAgaard did also from his custom 22″ .35 Whelen bolt action using the 250gr Nosler Partition over 60 grs of RL-15, the same load I used for 250gr bullets.  Also 2345 fps from the 300gr Barnes Original in the Rem 7400 from a book load of BL-C2. Those are impressive results from a .30-06 case necked to .358″. And, by-the-way, that 7400 action was as strong as any bolt action I’ve ever used. Never a jam or failure to eject an empty case loaded to top safe pressures.

Experiences vary, of course, depending on several variables, such as: barrel length, condition and tightness of bore, factory produced or custom, powder used and amount, primer, lots of powder, personality of handloader and manual employed.

<(Well known back country. I was walking a familiar trail from where I took this pic. A moose on the far shore – about 350 yards – would easily be within range of a .35 Whelen.)

In brief, those were my experiences. The semi was sold after several hunts and much range time. The NEF single-shot in .35 Whelen was traded for a .45-70 single-shot. A few years later I went looking for another .35 Whelen in a new bolt-action and came home with a 9.3 x 62 (more on that later). So, I have high regard for it, and think it to be one of the most useful all-purpose cartridges when handloaded. The original factory 250gr RN proved to be much less than claimed when fired at the range (so I could get some empty cases). Ten averaged just under 2250 fps. That was because I wanted to go deer hunting with it before dies and brass arrived. Of course, the 250s would have been plenty for deer at woods ranges, but it was disappointing, nonetheless. After the deer hunt (I didn’t shoot a deer, but was close to doing so), I fired the other ten at the range, got my dies and was “off to the races” in developing handloads.

Today, there are cases and ammo available from several sources. At the very least, Remington, having legitimized the cartridge and producing rifles for it, has spurred new interest so that it appears more popular today than in its heyday! For North American hunting there is really nothing too big or dangerous that demands a larger bore or more power. Here, on our continent it has more than proven itself. But also in Africa, Asia and Australia. If it has a fault, I suppose one could blame it for being too unpretentious.

Some prefer lighter quality bullets in 200gr and 225gr. While that can’t be seriously faulted, keep in mind that for the largest and most dangerous, the 250gr was built. And a 250gr Partition brings out its best in my view. Depending on length of action and freebore, one may be able to stretch the COL by a meaningful amount, thereby significantly improving ballistics. I could do that in the clip of my 7400. I always seat bullets as long as the action and throat allows, just off the lands of course. I have never found that by tinkering with bullet seating in thousandths of an inch made any practical difference in accuracy for hunting purposes. But I have found that 1 or 2 tenths of an inch more room in the case due to increased COL, can improve ballistics by upwards of 150 to 200 fps, depending on the cartridge, bore, powder and barrel of course.

Then, there is a multitude of pistol bullets in .357″, many of which make good use for varmints and plinking.

Hail the .35 Whelen, long may it live!

The .350 Remington Magnum: Introduced by Remington in their short-action M600 with a 20″ barrel, it was the first belted cartridge to fit their short action. Case capacity was about 74 grs whereas the .35 Whelen was around 72, as compared with the .30-06 at 69. The short-action constrained COL to 2.80″ which meant that power space would be cramped when held to that COL.

In its overall relatively short package, it became a favorite for bear guides in Alaska and elsewhere where a short and handy “powerhouse” was suited to deal with wounded or troublesome bears at relatively close range.

I’ve owned a couple, both Remingtons. The first was one of Remington’s annual “Classics” with a 22″ barrel, the short action and very nice walnut. It was one of the best handling rifles I’ve ever owned. It never went bear hunting but it did for whitetails.

Unfortunately, I had trouble getting the expected results from 200s and 250s when using the powders suggested and available at the time. While I loved the rifle, I was disappointed with the ballistics — it never attained 2400 fps from 250s,  so it got traded.

Many years later I purchased an M673 in .350 Rem Mag with the heavy laminated stock, short action and silly “rib” on the 22″ barrel. That rifle also started out as another “big disappointment” with handloads. That is, until I realized there was a problem with the chamber! Even the “weak” factory ammo was leaving tooling “rings” around the fired cases. I took it to my gunsmith, VonAtzigen, and he discovered the chamber had not been finished — it was roughed-out only, and undersized! He did an excellent job, and when finished it was polished like a mirror.

From that point on it’s performance was beyond belief! It had a stout 22″ barrel that gave exceptional accuracy and ballistic results that was about on a par with a same length .338 Win Mag barrel, depending on how each was handloaded. The .350 Rem was much more efficient than the .338 Win in that a faster burning powder gave optimum results, whereas the same powder in the .338 Win would have been a poor performer. In other words, the .338 Win needed about 10 more grains of a relatively slow powder for the same results.

The 250gr Speer GS was the star performer, with the 250gr Nosler Partition not far behind. The last three shots I fired in that rifle were the 250gr Speer GS that went into a perfect 3/8″ at 100 yards, leaving the muzzle at an average of 2734 fps over a charge of 62.3 grs RL-15 ignited by WLRM primers. COL was 2.82″.  On a bitter cold (-11*C) breezy March day in 2005 at our range, I shot three 200gr Hornady SPs into .913″ at 100 yards. MV = 2975 fps corrected to MV. Powder was 65 grs RL-15, and WLRM primers ignited them.

<(The M673 was toted for bear and the load was that 250 gr Speer GS.)

These were my ideal loads for that rifle after it was properly finished by the gunsmith: Remington brass, WLRM primers, RL-15 and COL @ 2.82″. Average for 3 shots.

200 Hornady SP; 65 grs RL-15; MV = 2975 fps/3930 ft-lbs (.913″)

225 Sierra BT; 63 grs RL-15; MV = 2850 fps/4058 ft-lbs (1.1″)

225 Nosler Partition; 62 grs RL-15 = 2820 fps/3973 ft-lbs (1.16″)

250 Speer GS; 62.3 grs RL-15 = 2710 fps/4076 ft-lbs (.625″)

I’d climbed that rugged mountain and then traded it. If I’d obtained those results from my first Remington “Classic”, it would have been kept as it was lighter and much better handling than the M673. And was prettier to boot.

The M673 was traded for an 1895 Marlin GG in .45-70 with the infamous ports and an 18.5″ barrel.  After less than a month’s use, I couldn’t tolerate the noise from the ports and turned it in at the same dealership for another Marlin Classic in .45-70 with a 22″ barrel. That was in April/2005.

The 358 NORMA MAGNUM: With a case having about the same dimensions as the .338 Win Mag, which it followed by a year, the .358 NM is ideal in case capacity for the bore size. A product of Sweden for the American market, it failed to catch on because it was a cartridge without a rifle. Cases, ammo and dimensions were made available but rifles were not immediately at hand from Europe, so it was then a matter of custom work.

I’ve owned a .308 Norma Magnum, but not the .358, which was the same case necked down from the .358. Other than some wildcats, it was the most powerful commercial .358-caliber on the market. In my view, it’s a slightly better cartridge than the .338 Win Mag in that it must have a larger bore rifle for firing, thereby increasing its expansion ratio resulting in better efficiency — less powder for the same energy results, or the same amount of powder for greater results. Another way of stating that is to say that where a .338 Win will easily fire a 250gr at 2700 fps, a .358 Norma will fire a 250gr at 2800 fps, other things equal such a barrel length and psi. It’s a simple matter of efficiency from a larger bore that is 12.5% greater in cross-section-area.

Yet the .358 Norma is market strapped by not being produced in America. Still, for the handyman, it’s no big deal to use .338 Win Mag brass. And there are lots of good to excellent bullets available on this side of the pond, the same as for the .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag; plus all the powders that will bring the best from any rifle so chambered. I think H4895, RL-15 & RL-17 should make the reloader sing happy songs! IMR4350, or their ilk, will do no better than RL-17 in my thinking, and perhaps less. Primers should be of the magnum sort.

It should be a little more effective on the big stuff than a .338 magnum. I’d use it with a 24″ barrel to ensure best performance. It doesn’t need a 26″. A 22″ tube will result in ballistics similar to the .350 Rem Mag.

The .358 STA: Many wildcats have appeared in times past that basically shaped the mold for this creation by author Layne Simpson. It’s the 8mm Remington necked to .358″.

Basically, it’s the .375 H&H case necked to .358″ and blown out. Or, another way of saying it is: It’s the .375 Weatherby (itself a .375 H&H blown out with straight walls) necked to .358-cal.

Whatever. It was not a new creation as the .375 H&H case has been the basis for many “cats” and others that became “standard” cartridges such as the Winchester series of magnums, plus Remingtons, including the likes of the .350 Rem itself! But many entrepreneurs had used the basic .375 H&H case necked down to .358″, blown it out to create their own .358 magnum. So Simpson’s STA (Shooting Times Alaskan) was simply endorsed by SAAMI as a legit cartridge. Of course, Layne Simpson, at the time, was on the staff of SHOOTING TIMES magazine.

The point I’m making is that a .358 magnum of 3.65″ COL has been around “forever”! There are still many out there that will do the same things as the STA since they fathered it!

Ballistics: a 250gr at 3000 fps/5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle of a 26″ barrel is the standard fare for anything big and mean. Basically the same results as from my .340 Wby Mag. But an increase of 12.5% cross-section-area of a 250gr might give slightly better results — or not!

There you have it…

For .358 caliber.

Personally, my choice would be the .35 Whelen or the .350 Rem Mag. Can’t imagine I’d need more from a .358-caliber.

Next: the 9.3 mm’s(.366-cal). As a medium, it’s now my choice. Why?

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Medium Caliber Rifles — one more time – P1

To this point in blog writing,  I’ve treated this topic quite fully and fairly, I believe. Though I could be mistaken as the Super Mediums have barely occupied a short paragraph. The excuse being that apart from data in manuals, and the writings of a few authors, I have experience with only one — that being the .340 Weatherby Magnum. And that one has been given reasoned exposition based on considerable personal handloading and hunting experience. So anything that is comparable has purposefully been mostly ignored. This time around I’ll give them a polite nod.

For newcomers and occasional readers of my “stuff”, a timely reminder of what I consider “mediums” would be fitting.  Starting at .338-caliber and 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle, we’ll end at .375-caliber and whatever is deemed “reasonable” in kinetic energy.

In the past I’ve excluded the super .375s, i.e. .375 RUM and .378 Weatherby, and any “wildcats” of their ilk, as they contend with the true Big Bores for recognition in kinetic energy, but NOT necessarily in effect.  I don’t believe that any .375-caliber can produce the same effect as a .500-caliber (as one example of a Big Bore) when each has done its “best”, no matter an extra 200 or so fps at most ranges for the Super .375s.

If penetration alone were the “name of the game” then a 6.5, 160gr solid would suffice in most situations. But since penetration is only part of the story, some of us believe that a larger hole in flesh and bone in a vital area is the rest of the story. So a .338 to .375 have distinct advantages over .264 caliber. And where needed or wanted, Big Bores have distinct advantages over all others in wound cavity and destruction of flesh and bone. Of course I agree… bullet speed and construction at impact cannot be ignored, even if we try to ignore them!

That was my “short ‘n sweet” preamble.

What about .323 (8 mm) caliber? It’s sort of in “no man’s land”, as I view it. At one time I was somewhat fascinated with the 8mm Rem Magnum, but few adequate bullets were available for the handloader, and factory ammo was poor in comparison with .300s and .338s.

I originally started mediums at .358 caliber but later relented to allow .338 caliber into the fold. That being .338s that could muster 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle, which the .338-06 couldn’t do, though being a good hunting cartridge for most N.A. big game at reasonable ranges. But despite comments by noted authors to the contrary, it can’t keep up with the .35 Whelen when barrel length, psi and bullet weights are the same — AND the best powder is used in each.

So let the games begin!

In .338 CALIBER the following cartridges get recognition if handloading data is available in three of the reloading manuals of recent times in my library: BARNES, HORNADY and NOSLER, and make at least 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle when handloaded.

Those are: .338 Win. Mag. and .340 Weatherby Mag. (my former .340 Weatherby Mag.)>

Any others basically imitate those two in ballistics, and I’ll explain my reasoning as we move along. Those are chosen as they depict the two main classes of .338 magnums. All others are similar to them with the possible exception of the .338-.378 Weatherby.  If we include it, then we have three representative cases in progression of capacity.

The .338 Winchester Magnum was introduced by Winchester in 1958, two years later than the .458 Win Mag, and based on that case, 2.5″ in length, necked down to .338″. Case capacity is only slightly less than the much longer .375 H&H and nearly as powerful in kinetic energy when the best handloads are employed.

Factory ammo has varied over the years. Standard velocities today are 2960 fps for 200s/3890 ft-lbs, and 2660 fps/3927 ft-lbs for 250s. At one time there was a 300gr advertised at 2430 fps/3933 ft-lbs, all from a 24″ barrel. There are several variations in factory ammo today. Much of it is in 225gr advertised at 2760 fps/3805 ft-lbs. Also a 210gr is promoted at 2880 fps/3867 ft-lbs. Apart from standard ammo, there have been other “premium loads” promoted at higher velocities and energies than the standard group.

As to handloads, several manuals come close to its true capabilities, always with a cautionary approach for fear of litigious actions against them.

Personally, I’ve considerable experience with two owned .338 Win Mags, and a third owned by my son, Phil. Barrel lengths were from 20″ to 26″; one of each, and my son’s was a standard 24″. From those experiences I learned that barrel length does make a difference — and sometimes a considerable difference. So, I’m reluctant to be dogmatic as to what a .338 Win Mag will “do” without qualifications, as there are many, many variables involved.

For example: from the .338 SAKO FS, 20″ barrel (similar to the pic above), and after a few years of work with it, and other powders and bullets becoming available, I was able to achieve a high of +2700 fps from the 250gr Sierra BT. Did you notice that was from a 20-inch barrel? On the other end of matters, from my 26-inch Browning A-Bolt SS, LH, it reached 2842 fps from a 250gr Hornady SP and a “book load! Now that’s nudging low-end .340 WBY territory! How many grains of “what” powder? 74 grs of RL-19, ignited by WLRM primers!

So the disparity between a 20″ and a 26″ = +/- 138 fps, or 4483 ft-lbs minus 4046 ft-lbs = 437 ft-lbs in that one example! So who wants to be pontifical over the power and reach of a .338 Win Mag without qualifiers? Not I! Phil’s moose hunting load was a 250gr Hornady SP at 2735 fps. It worked well, though I’m quite certain it could have attained +2750 fps without sweating.

(M700 Remington nearly identical to my son’s .338 WM)>

The .338 Winchester Magnum is quite popular, considering that the majority of hunters/shooters are into small and sub-medium rifles/cartridges. And that popularity for use in anything from deer to brown bear hunting in N.A. has spurred a further proliferation of light premium projectiles all the way to long-range bullets such as Nosler’s LR and AccuBonds with a BC of .575 for the 250gr. And others are keeping up with their editions of LR projectiles, as well as light-for-caliber bullets with excellent construction and shape. So it’s not only possible to employ your .338 Win for smaller game than was though “normal” in the past, but very appropriately! The .338 Win is not going away any time soon! One could do a LOT worse than choosing a .338 WIN as an all-purpose rifle for anything from coyote to brown bear — when handloaded.

The .330 Dakota fits, more or less, within those ballistic parameters with the best handloads in equal length barrels. Of course, rifles, factory ammo and brass will not be abundant nor cheap.

The .340 Weatherby Magnum: This one came into the world by Weatherby in 1962. Some say in response to, or to compete with, the growing popularity of the .338 Win Mag.  Whatever the reason, it offered considerably more in ballistics than the .338 WIN. In factory guise it claimed +200 fps over the Winchester version shooting a 250gr at 2860 fps/4540 ft-lbs from a 26-inch barrel. I have not read any reports for or against that claim. One thing we do know, however, is that across the board Weatherby’s ammo was hot-stoked!

Today, Weatherby claims 2950 fps/4830 ft-lbs for some of its 250 grain loads in the .340. While having only fired a single factory 250gr load of the originals in my .340 Wby at about 2850 fps, I well know that +2950 fps from 250gr Nosler Partitions is easily attained from best handloads. In fact, for many years my hunting load was a 250gr Nosler Partition at +/- 3000 fps/4995 ft-lbs from a 26″ Browning barrel. That exceeded the 26″ .338 Win Mag by 158 fps after it was rechambered to .340 WBY. To simplify matters, that means that what the .338 Win could do at 400 yards, the .340 could do at 500…. And so on.

From my converted .338 Win to .340 Wby, the following represents some of its established ballistics in hunting loads:

250gr Hornady SP @ 2945 fps into 7/16″, 87 grs RL-22

250gr Hornady SP @ 2790 fps into 3/4″ at 300 yards! 87 grs AA3100

200gr NBT @ 2175 fps into 1.5″, 80 grs  8700 (fireforming & hunting)

225gr Hornady @ 2855 fps into 3/4″, 83 grs AA3100

*Those represent some of the best of three shots @ 100 yds. Nonetheless, I used the 250gr Nosler for moose hunting at 3000 fps average over several years into 1.25″ for three at 100 yards. I shot my bull moose with that load. All brass was fireformed .375 H&H, once fired Remington. Primers were WLRM.

What the .338 Lapua and RUM will do is largely represented by what I achieved with the .340 Wby Mag.

A few years later I had the opportunity to purchase a .338 RUM or a 9.3 x 62. I chose the latter and have never looked back.

The .338-.378 Weatherby: I include this one because Weatherby still produces them, and there are a few out there.

Nosler’s ballistics in their Reloading Guide 6 is not that impressive. Perhaps that represents all their testing personnel could endure! Regardless, their best for the 250gr Partition isn’t much better at 3034 fps than what I was getting from my .340 at 3000 fps. But only four powders were tested and I think it’s likely that it was arbitrarily shut down at 101 grs of IMR7828 as that only gave 90% load density. If 90% represents 3034 fps, then what would 100% give? That might be another 10 grains at an additional 200 fps, perhaps? But not likely of the same powder.

I included it for speculation only, as, personally, I wouldn’t have a use for it. I’d go to something larger in bore — as I already have in Big Bores.

Next up the .35s.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

Hunting and Politics

The Spring Bear Hunt of 1999 was cancelled by the Harris’ Conservative Government of Ontario. That happened because a wealthy developer of Southern Ontario involving the Greater Toronto Area threatened to unseat the Conservative Government if Premier Harris didn’t cancel the spring hunt. Harris’ Government caved. He lost the next election anyway as most hunters were fed up with politicians arbitrarily deciding the future of this kind of beneficial outdoor recreation.

Then the Ontario Liberal Party’s leader, as Premier, maintained the same political stance as the former Conservative leader. Status quo for two more Liberal governments. However, as politics is more or less like a revolving door, the Liberal Premier got into trouble with the public on several fronts, including a stalemate on the spring bear hunt that involved the economic failure of lodges and camps in Northern Ontario — which already faced economic depression due to slumping businesses — where American hunters and fishermen were clients in years prior to the cancellation of the bear hunt. In facing a new election with the strong probability of the northern Liberal MPPs losing their seats in government — which would likely cause the defeat of the incumbents — the then Liberal Premier reintroduced the Spring Bear Hunt as a five year “pilot project” to insure their continued power in government by quelling the unrest of potential voters from the north of the Province.

Most of us didn’t care much for their motives, but the Spring Hunt was back for five years. Before the time of its extension was over they were defeated and the new Conservative Premier has announced the permanent continuation of the Spring Bear Hunt.

Great news!

However, the current Ontario Conservatives are losing favor with many who voted them into power due to a more stringent economic social agenda, and a continual battle with the powerful Teachers’ Union. The revolving political door all over again! So who knows what the next Ontario Government will propose re: “the Spring Bear Hunt”? From a strictly economic point of view it’s more or less neutral, but that’s not the only political consideration. Checking the wind of public opinion will make the decision for them no matter what a few thousand resident bear hunters may feel about the matter. And public opinion is mostly decided by urban residents, not rural. And politicians are sensitive to their views since that’s where most of their votes come from.

A just cause, or the view of a minority rarely makes it to the table! Wealth has not only influence, but power! And scarcely does that exist in rural Ontario. The principle of a matter carries little weight in today’s politics. Occasionally they will introduce legislation that keeps the few happy, but only if it will tilt the balance in maintaining their party in power — such as the reintroduction of the Spring Bear Hunt.

Hunters therefore hold their respective noses and enjoy the return of a hunt that chases away the winter blues and the cobwebs from their minds!

Hail the Spring Bear Hunt!

For many seasons it was my favorite time of year. Planning would start sometime in Febuary — about the time that new bears were being born in the winter dens with their mothers. That involved what rifle and handloads. But there must also be a backup with handloads! Choices of rifles, cartridges, bullets and powders were thought about until the dream became reality. Also, the question of where to locate bait and stand became a preoccupation.

So it was in every spring that plans were made and executed down to the finest details. Often, before the bears were out of their dens, I was out and about looking for any signs of life. It was an adventure.

Speaking of which, I have tentative plans for patrolling some Crown Land semi-wilderness areas this spring with a bear ticket in my wallet. No plans yet for baiting but will do some hiking and calling, God willing. I expect to be toting the Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag. Not sure of the load yet, but it may be a heavy cast lead bullet at modest speed or what I was using last fall, a 300gr TSX at about 2778 fps/5140 ft-lbs at the muzzle. The rifle is sighted for that load and a few are already loaded. Recoil is modest (for a .458 WIN) at around 37 ft-lbs that has been tempered by the Mag-Na-Porting from 43 ft-lbs. With a 2 – 7 x 32mm Nikon scope mounted, four cartridges in a holder on the butt stock and one in the chamber it comes in at 10.75 lbs. Not a big deal if I commit to keeping fit.

I’ve a “new”(new to me, but used) set of wheels that has replaced the KIA CUV that was on a four-year lease. It’s about right for my purposes being a mid-size SUV. “No pickup?” That’s truth, and have never owned one in all the years of my hunting experiences.

The year that my son, Phil, and I did a moose hunt together in Northern Ontario, I towed a steel and iron 1000 lb lawn-service trailer hitched to my bright red two-door Pontiac Sunbird 1600 kilometers to our hunting destination. The motor was a 3.1 L, V6 producing 140 horses pulling a 3000 lb sport coup, loaded in the trunk with supplies and gear, plus the back seat with more gear and “stuff”, and the two of us weighing close to 400 lbs in the bucket seats, pulling the trailer loaded with camping gear, gasoline and water cans holding 5 gallons each. How much weight was all that? I dunno, but it was a bunch. Then, we brought home on the trailer 800 lbs of bull moose after we left innards, head and legs below the knees in the woods. We also cruised the rough, muddy and water filler ruts of the old logging roads in that coup looking for moose sign (without the trailer attached). I shot the bull 350 yards from camp on opening day and we were on our way home the following day!  On the two day journey home it was most interesting in stopping at various Tim Horton’s Coffee Shops for a break, a change of diet, and gasoline, to see caravans of pickup trucks pulling long trailers loaded with gear and usually several 4x4s void of any moose!

That car and load worked beautifully together on the 1600 km trip home while getting an average of 26 mpg (Imperial)!

So, my mid-size SUV will go where I want and easily tote a bear of any dimension! I expect to get close to 30 mpg from its 240 horses — the same size motor with 100 more horses! That’s efficiency!

Speaking of which, no rifle cartridge for big game is more efficient than the eminent .458 Winchester Magnum. Say, have I not previously mentioned that? A few times? Nay, multiple!

Give her a try and bring home some bear and moose meat!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .30-06 Springfield — how good is it?

Actually, the .30-06 Springfield is better than ever, not that it was ever a poor performer. Yet with new rifles, powders and bullets its performance has been potentially elevated to match the Super Thirty of the 1920’s. That, of course, being the .300 H&H that had a standard factory load of a 180gr at 2880 fps/3315 ft-lbs from a 26″ barrel. And African loads were less than that due to the cordite powder’s inability to control pressure when heated up. Today, a good .30-06 can make that from a 24″ barrel using a premium bullet.  At a COL of 3.34″ Nosler’s manual shows a max velocity of 2872 fps from their 24″ Lilja barrel employing 61 grains of RL-22. Most of today’s magazine rifles allow a longer COL which would permit a few extra grains upping fps at the same psi, which is SAAMI standard at 60,000. For those who are experienced enough of venturing into the 64,000 psi territory, you could expect another 100 fps giving in excess of 2900 fps. That’s on the heels of some factory fodder from a 24″ .300 Winchester Magnum. Using the same procedure for the 200gr AccuBond from a 26″ tube, expect about 2750 fps which is more than the SAAMI standard for 180s.

I’d have no qualms over extracting such performance from a modern 26″,  .30-06 Springfield, and there are those who are doing just that. Such an effect puts a  26″, .30-06  into the “magnum” class of .30-calibers, and boosts it’s potential for bagging an adult moose to 500 yards if using a bullet like the 200gr AccuBond with a BC of .588 at 2750 fps. It would still be making about 1885 ft-lbs at 500 yards, and 2396 ft-lbs at 300 yards, numbers in the past that were found only in the class of medium magnums or a .300 Weatherby firing factory ammo — but still without the benefit of today’s “premium” projectiles.

Some potential results:

Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield

Barrel length = 26″

Powder = Rl-22 or similar

Primer: magnum

Bullet: 200gr Nosler Accubond

MV = 2750 fps/3358 ft-lbs

100= 2603 fps/3008 ft-lbs

200=2461 fps/2688 ft-lbs

300=2323 fps/2396ft-lbs

400=2189 fps/2128 ft-lbs

500=2060 fps/1885 ft-lbs

And that’s at my test conditions. And one could expect even better results for longer shots in the heat of Africa or high mountain hunts. With a good broadside hit 1885 ft-lbs from a premium 200gr should be adequate for a 1000 to 1100 lb average mature moose in our area (bull or cow).

Plus that load would be quite flat shooting at only + 3 inches at 100, -4″ at 300, and -38″ at 500 . Just hold 1.5 to 2 feet over the hump for a hit in “the boiler room” at 500. In other words, we must know the bullet’s trajectory regardless of what we hunt, or where.

Recoil would be a mere 26 ft-lbs from a 8.5 lb rifle compared to 35 ft-lbs from a .300 magnum shooting the same bullet at 3000 fps from the same weight rifle.

That was to show its potential, NOT a RECOMMENDATION for anyone but myself or those with equivalent knowledge and experience in handloading. The truth is, however, that few will be shooting large game at 500 yards. At less than 500 the trajectory will be flatter and the energy greater making clean hits more effective and easier for the average guy or gal.

What would I recommend to a new moose hunter who wanted to choose between a .30-06 and a .300 magnum?

That would depend on a number of factors:

First of all, my answer would depend on how well I knew the individual. My recommendation to Ben, a young friend who wanted to hunt bear with me, depended on several matters that I had eyeballed about him. I was his parents pastor when he was born. They had met in Southern Rhodesia where the father was in the military and the mother a Canadian missionary nurse in that area. They married and moved to our town in Ontario, Canada. Because of his father’s and uncle’s involvement with firearms in a military context in Africa, and due to his uncle’s hunting in current day Zimbabwe, Ben joined cadet training for two summers in the Canadian military, so he had some familiarity with rifles, and hopes someday to go to Africa to hunt with his uncle.

Secondly, Ben was a big lad who had been a participant in our floor hockey program. He was no hockey enthusiast, but his size and spirit made everyone else, including participants who had won a championship in the sport, pay attention when Ben was on the move!

Finally, he had followed me around when I was bear baiting and that meant many hours of teaching, training and discussions. He was an avid Internet researcher and could intelligently discuss most subjects. He was no dummy and showed respect as he was hearing and observing.

<(Ben with his .300 Win Mag in a tree stand watching for bear.)

So I found a slightly used .300 Win Mag in a 111 Savage, almost identical to mine, and recommended it to him. I bought the rifle and kept it for him until he did the firearms and hunting courses. He shot two bears with it, decided to go to our local college and took a course in “Drilling and Blasting”, one of the favorites for young men, and had a job waiting for him in Western Canada before the course ended. He’s been there since, found a Christian gal and they expect to be married this summer.

And, oh, if you’ve read my blogs of a few years past, you’d be familiar with this pic of Ben. He was 6-5″ and 300 lbs at the time.

Why that historical setting for my recommendation? If I need to answer that then you wouldn’t understand anyway!

The major point being that a lot depends on the individual, their age, attitude, experience and physical condition.

If they need to ask for a recommendation between a .30-06 and a .300 Win Mag, then it’s very obvious to me that their knowledge and experience is  limited. Yet we see a lot of such questions on various hunting/shooting forums. It’s too bad, therefore, that most “answers” reflect personal biases without much content that addresses the question. And often the latter end of the matter results in “shouting matches” and name calling! Nothing is learned other than a confirmation of Scripture that states “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

But this is about the .30-06 Springfield and how good it is… for what? My answer will depend on the factors mentioned as well as whether one is a handloader or dependent on factory products only. There is a difference, and a potential major one.

Should a hunter be solely dependent on factory products, the cost of the best suited for large game is VERY expensive and therefore potentially limiting necessary practice with the load AND rifle.

As I’ve already mentioned several times in these blogs, the first two big-game rifles for which I made handloads were .30-06’s, and I didn’t own a chronograph at the time so there was no way of actually knowing the results. My assumption was that book numbers from Lyman were close enough, though they were not from a 22″ barrel. That first Lyman manual had a plastic binding, and I studied it with great confidence and intensity. By the way — I’ve found Lyman’s updated manuals to be among the best, if not THE best, especially for Big Bores. That’s what I studied for potential results from a Ruger No.1 in .45-70 as they gave the pressure of their loads.

Back to the current theme: In a recent blog I compared the .30-06 and .300 Win Mag with good handloads in each. The conclusion was that based on those results the .300 Win Mag had an advantage of 150 yards over the .30-06 firing the same bullet. And I didn’t skew the numbers to favor the .300 WM. Since those results don’t lie, I stand by what I wrote. Yet in this blog I’m saying that under ideal conditions, a knowledgeable hunter/handloader could pull off a kill on a mature moose (bull or cow — in Ontario there’s little difference in their mature weights) at 500 yards. However, an experienced hunter/handloader/shooter would only take such a shot under certain conditions: Using a solid rest, knowing the bullet’s trajectory, and accurately doping the wind. But that is still pushing matters to the limit from a best load in a 26″ .30-06. While the smart shooter/hunter would use the same precautions in using a .300 Winchester, the trajectory will be significantly flatter in using the same bullet, and hit with 400 to 500 more ft-lbs of energy, depending on actual range — at 300 yards it’s about +500 ft-lbs advantage for the .300 WM, and at 500 yards it’s about +400 ft-lbs. In other words, what the .30-06 will be making at 340 yards from it’s best load from the 200gr AccuBond, the .300 Win Mag will be making at 500 yards. That’s 160 yards advantage. The .300 Win Mag can make 3000 fps at the muzzle of a good 26″ barrel firing a 200 grainer.

<(On one of our moose hunts to N. Ontario we encountered this “mountain” with a lot of bull moose sign. From where I took the pic, it’s about 500 yards to the top. The photo doesn’t show it, but there’s about 250 yds to the bottom and another 250 to the top. Then a sharp cliff drop-off on the far side.)

Another way of looking at matters is this: What the .30-06 is capable of at 500 yds, the .300 WM can do at 650 yds. So for real long-range shooting of large game, the .300 magnum has a distinct advantage — undeniably so! And it will ALWAYS hit harder at the same range — undeniably so! Hitting “harder” translates to destroying more stuff — undeniably so!

Mine will always be a .300 Win Mag or equivalent.

BUT! The .30-06 is still capable of achieving +90% of what we want or need in North America under IDEAL CONDITIONS!

So, what would I recommend?

First, you must tell me who you are!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Should a Christian Hunt?

The reason that such a question should even be raised is due to at least a couple of significant changes in societal thinking and behaviour in a post-modern world.

This could easily be extended into a ten-part series, and even then the surface would only be scratched. So I’m immediately going to cut to the chase and let the chips fall where they may (please excuse the mixed metaphor).

Firstly: It’s not a “Christian world” in the West anymore, and never really was but that’s another subject for another place. “Secularism”, and trending thereto has become the “new religion”. And so-called “Christians” have abandoned their ancient moorings for so-called “fresh thinking” with its concomitant behaviour. And we wonder why personal morality is up for grabs? History has its ominous lessons to teach us if we really wanted to hear or heed them! It’s recorded in ancient scripture that when Israel had no king, but were ruled by judges, that “Everyone did what was right in his/her own eyes”. That was a very sad day in the history of God’s people! (Book of Judges, last verse.)

There has been a relentless cultural shift in the thinking and behaviour of the Western World with it’s global ramifications. It began in Europe in the late fourteenth century through the sixteenth when “free thinking” replaced stifling legalistic Christianity, which brought about “The Renaissance”. That was both good and bad as unbelievers within Christian ranks could now “freely” express their unbelief in a supernatural God and the Bible. Of course, it was then necessary to come up with a “new theory” of the universe and existence of life among the cognoscente. Enter stage “left”, Darwin and his minions. If there be no God, or only a remote impersonal “FORCE” at best, why worry over such figments as MORALITY?! After all, we now know that MAN is his own GOD!! But that produces its own conundrum! Who then will rule and make decisions? Ah ha! Israel’s conundrum without a king, “deja-vu all over again”,  in the words of wisdom by the famous Yankee’s catcher!  Ahh… “Rule by the majority, that’s it! That’s the answer!” And how well is that working in contemporary America and the West? Has that produced “Weinsteins” and political leaders that don’t know what truth is? And the UN that wants to take away my “rights” to own a rifle and hunt, “for the good of humanity”?

There is an answer but “the majority” don’t want to hear it! They prefer a universe where… If there is a god, the masses prefer that he would be blind to their immoral behaviour, and deaf to their vulgarities, blasphemies, curses and thanklessness, and indifferent of truth and judgement… or incapable of transforming their nature.

You see, I’m a Christian who trusts in a real God and what He has said and done — including building a universe and giving life to every living thing, who alone is the source and sustainer of all life, including eternal life.

And I’m a hunter as a Christian. I’ve studied the Bible since my youth, having read it through for the first time at age twelve, and researched and studied it both informally and formally for the past 70 plus years, and there I find nothing that specifically forbids hunting or even implies that I should cease doing so — other than in complying with provincial/state legalities attached thereto.

And I’m a pastor — still at age 84, who has had certain Christians question the sensibility of a pastor who hunts wildlife, and who are ALSO against hunting largely because of personal sentiment and/or the cultural shift against it. No doubt the masses (majority rule) will eventually succeed in the demise of ALL hunting, AND meat eating! We see that trend today in increasing measure — also predicted in the New Testament of the Bible as a SIGN of “The Last Days” (1 Timothy ch. 4, vs 1 – 5).

I realize, of course, that I’m “preaching to the choir” in defending my recreational activity in hunting. No one here will question that “right” but it’s very possible that you may not have made the connection between freedoms that God has given and the right to choose to hunt in a so-called “free society”.  The roots for such “freedom” is traditional Christianity (Biblical Christianity), or Judaeo – Christian thinking and worldview.

Darwinism doesn’t make a distinction between the lowest forms of life and the highest, because it was “all by chance” anyway, without design or purpose. If that be so, then why be concerned about “morality”? As I once sat on a train travelling from Montreal to Toronto, my travelling colleague was a Christian Jew from California living in Montreal. Across the aisle was a Jewish businessman from Montreal who was blaming God for the Holocaust, though he claimed not to believe in Him! I said: “Since you think God is to blame, but the Holocaust is  proof that He really doesn’t exist, why does it matter? There is no judgement since God doesn’t exist, and whose morality claims are just? Maybe the Nazis were right since there’s no higher court above human opinion to appeal to. And IF there’s no after-life, then death may be better than life since all the dead don’t know their dead and have no recollection of mistreatment. But IF there is GOD, and an afterlife, and judgement, then what?” He remained silent.

Conscience isn’t enough to guarantee righteous behaviour… where is justice found, and where its foundation? And love? Is Hollow-Wood the standard?

Secondly: Where is freedom found? The freedom to hunt is one thing, but the lack of personal freedom to say “No!” to lust that enslaves and destroys is quite another! The drug cartels of South America have made countless billions from the pockets of “free” North Americans where “majority rules”, who become slaves to unbridled destructive passions! And that has included “powerful” people with millions of dollars at their disposal. There is much, much more involved in personal freedom than living in a country where “majority rules” if the majority is bent on “freely” choosing that which will destroy them!

Yes, having the right to hunt is one thing only, but living in a “free society” that is inclusive of the right to follow unbridled lust and passion is quite another! To dismiss a very serious destructive societal problem as merely “their own fault” has come to lay its eggs on our doorsteps!

A very close friend has twin sons now in their early forties. One is an alcoholic that has trouble keeping a job for which he’s amply trained. His father is constantly bailing him out! The other holds a PhD in chemistry and employed in a Western Canadian university as a professor. The father doesn’t wash his hands of helping the one in trouble, saying “It’s his own fault!”. That doesn’t make his son in trouble guiltless, but neither does it make the father free from guilt.

You cherish your freedom to hunt, as do I, but are we truly free from the “demons” that would destroy us? That could “merely” be enslavement to materialism — while turning a blind eye to others in need.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”, asked a successful businessman of God, who was jealous of a younger brother whom he had just murdered.

Think people!

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Your Rifle has how much “Power”?

A few years ago I was pastor-counsellor of a young-adult in his mid to late twenties. He was a member of our floor hockey program for young men who often had serious issues in their lives that trapped them into at least a non-productive lifestyle, if not a destructive one. “Jeff”* excelled in sports like ice hockey and floor hockey. In fact he was a key player on a floor hockey team from our area that won the Ontario Floor Hockey Championship a couple of years prior to joining our program. But most often he was unemployed and had a serious alcohol problem which interfered with any healthy relationships and fruitful employment. I helped get him enrolled into our local college for training as a heavy equipment operator. He worked in such a job for a few months, made good money in Western Canada then left that work and returned back home and into the same lifestyle.

His view of life began in a home where his father was profitably employed but also an alcoholic and became very unhealthy due to alcoholism, diabetes and overweight. When I knew “Jeff” (not his real name), his father was living alone, and sometimes in a hospital. He was not a good role-model for his son — who did care for his father’s well-being but sadly was developing the same destructive habits .

“Jeff’s” whole family were hunters, including his father, which could have been a good influence to wholesome living but that also became a snare due to binges on alcoholic beverages. Sadly, that sort of behaviour has become the main attraction in some hunt camps. Alcohol and hunting are as dangerous as alcohol and driving!

Anyway, I once asked “Jeff” what he used for deer hunting. The majority of his group used .30-06’s in rifles and 12-gauge in shotguns. None were handloaders. When I asked about his .30-06 loads he wasn’t sure — maybe 180s or 150s.

I’ve painted a rather bleak picture of Jeff’s existence, I know, but actually he was very intelligent and so was his father, yet they’d been trapped into a self-destructive lifestyle; perhaps due to generational bad choices and habits.

Since you’re reading this it’s likely that you have at least some awareness of rifle ballistics, but you might be surprised in knowing that a majority of hunters in the past and some of today’s hunters use rifles and ammo of which they couldn’t talk intelligently regarding their ballistics. I’ve used the term “power” in the title of this piece because as ambivalent as that might seem, that is how the majority of sportsmen involved in hunting think about such matters even though their talk of “power” as it relates to hunting is mostly vague. They only “know” that their rifles have “plenty of power” for the task at hand.

<(Old friend, Roger, with his mammoth northern Alberta bull elk. He is a handloader) Only about 15% of actual hunters are handloaders. That would still be a significant number, particularly in the USA. Within that group (worldwide) are those who study ballistics and want to have a clear understanding of what a particular cartridge/caliber/rifle is capable of in the field. Then, of course, the majority of those are not into Big Bores but small-bores and sub-mediums — .223 cal to .308 cal. While I’ve handloaded a majority of common cartridges from .223-cal. to .458-cal., as you well know if you’ve followed these blogs, I specialize in Mediums and Big Bores.

But a rifle’s effect on game, whatever its cartridge designation or physical circumstances, has always intrigued me and I can’t easily dismiss that. Of course there are ballistics printed on boxes of factory ammo and in reloading manuals. These usually entail trajectory and kinetic energy at the muzzle to 500 yards. Whatever the case may be, knowledgeable/experienced reloaders and hunters want to know in experience what cartridge “A” shooting bullet “B” will effect in animal “C” at range “D”, other matters such as good bullet placement being equal.

My audience is relatively small but intelligent, as witnessed by the countless discussions, points of view, books, articles and summaries over the past century or more on this theme. And today, of course, we have numerous digital electronic sources as well.

What’s the most simple answer? There isn’t any! It’s a compilation of many factors that challenges the most brilliant minds and experienced hunters to ably put all that into a comprehensive statement or formula; none of which at the day’s end will satisfy the most critically minded — and that’s not intended as a derogatory statement. On the contrary. Yet, it still seems to me that there is value in calculating trajectory and energy at bullet impact. But is there more to it than that? I believe so, and so do a significant number of a minority. “Jeff”, by the way, had the capacity to become involved  in such a venture had his need for intellectual achievement been greater than his need to “just fit in and be accepted” by family and “friends”.

The company we keep, or choose to, often is the greatest influence in our lives for good or evil!

“He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm” – King Solomon (About 1000 BC).

I’ve previously written thousands of words, hundreds of paragraphs and several blogs on this subject, but there are always newcomers who browse the Internet looking for “new” information. And I may post some statements on various gun/hunting related forums where my blog address is automatically given — hence the “new” readers. So some of this may already be familiar to you.

As previously explained, I’ve studied in depth expositions on this subject as well as the more common, easy to digest formulas by Taylor, Keith and Wootters. In my view, all of it has merit, and all of it has some self-contradictions. The main problem of the “in-depth” stuff is that it’s far too long and by the time you get to the end you might say, “What did I just read?” as rarely a conclusion is formed, or found!

So many just throw up their hands and become a “Jeff” with the attitude of “a .30-06 will get ‘er done!”, or whatever choice (or choices) they’ve made for a hunting firearm. And that’s the majority… So am I just “whistling in the wind”?

I’m almost certain that you understand that depending on kinetic energy numbers alone in a variety of hunting contexts is comparable to depending on HP numbers from a gasoline engine for a wide variety of work contexts. But 565 hp from a gasoline engine isn’t really comparable to 565 hp from a diesel motor that has to pull 60,000 lbs up a steep grade. The 565 hp gasoline engine may only produce 500 ft-lbs of torque at peak performance (between 3000 and 4000 rpm) whereas the 565 hp diesel will produce about three to four times the torque of the gas motor between 1500 to 2000 rpm. So, there is horse power, and then there is torque!

That was an illustration of how I perceive the differences in the spectrum of small bores all the way to big-bore rifles. For one example: a .25-06 may produce 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at impact on a 850 lb bull elk at 150 yards using a good 120gr Nosler Partition, starting at 3150 fps from the muzzle. Or, one may choose to use a .45-70 firing a good 405gr that produces 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at 150 yards on the same elk. If a choice were to be made, I’d choose the .45-70 every time! Why? They each produce the same KE at impact, but is there nonetheless a distinction? Unequivocally, yes! And a majority of those who have used a .45-70 on elk (or moose) would do the same!

The gas motor makes it’s hp based on RPM, the 25-06 makes its KE based on speed (fps). The diesel motor makes it’s “power” based on torque, the .45-70 makes it’s “power” based on KE, momentum (akin to torque) and cross-sectional-area.

The .25-06 has 47 lbs-ft momentum (Keith) at 2000 ft-lbs impact, but the .45-70 has 86 lbs-ft momentum (Keith). Taylor’s numbers would look like this: 25-06 = 12 KO, and the .45-70 = 39 KO, or 3.3 times that of the .25-06.

For what it’s worth, my results are: 25-06 = 27, and the .45-70 = 91, or about the same ratio as the Taylor formula. Taylor wrote that he considered 40 KO to be adequate for the African Big Five. The .375 H&H makes that at the muzzle using a 300gr at 2500 fps. Taylor’s numbers are still being quoted today by a significant number of erudite safari goers. Surely, there’s a reason.

Just as a diesel motor has about 3 times the torque of a gasoline motor while quoting the same horse power, so the difference in momentum between small bores and large bores quoting the same KE is about 3 times. Surely, that counts for something as well.

Yet, as transport companies, those involved in moving massive amounts of soil and rock, and commercial fishermen have all turned to diesel power over gasoline powered motors, there are seemingly countless numbers of hunters who have turned to speed and small calibers over Mediums and Big Bores. Why?

The reasons are several but varied — that is, not all have the same reason, or reasons.

Let me suggest a few:

1) Most claim that small, or smaller, bore cartridges will now do what was done in the past by large-bore cartridges. One well-known gun writer holds that opinion.

Let’s examine that: It’s true that every cartridge, old or new, has profited from better metallurgy, machining processes, new powders and bullets. Note, however, that includes “old” as well as “new”, and Big Bores as well as smaller bores. “Back-in-the-day”, it was argued by some that the classic .458 Winchester Magnum couldn’t make the power claimed for it from a 500gr — about 2150 fps/5131 ft-lbs. Today it’s been unequivocally demonstrated that it can produce 2300 fps/5873 ft-lbs! So yeah, the small ones are better than ever, but so also are the BIG ONES!

2) A few days ago I was having coffee with a couple of close friends at a Tim Horton’s Coffee Shop. One of the men brought his two grandsons along, as he was grandson sitting that day. The oldest was 12 and his brother was 10. The twelve-year old entered into conversation with me stating he was taking the hunter education program in August, and his father was also. He then mentioned the rifle he was hoping to purchase. Already he’d saved $500 toward the purchase of a .243 Winchester for deer hunting. I commended him for his purpose and project. But why a .243 Win.? I never asked that question of course, as I already knew the answer. And it would not be a bad choice for a 12 year old.

I don’t know his father’s level of knowledge or experience, and I didn’t ask, but if it were I making the choice for a son or grandson, I’d choose the 7-08 based on the same case (.308 Win). Why? Because it’s a better choice for the whitetail in our region, shooting heavier bullets with a wider diameter. Then, there are plenty of bullet choices for varmints and small game as well. As the lad ages he may want to shoot a bear or moose, and surely a .284-cal is superior to a .243-cal for larger game.

But smaller-bore cartridges are popular and the .243 Win is at or near the top. Popularity (numbers) is the main reason for the choice of rifles. Just ask any dealer.  As in “Jeff’s” case, just about everyone he knew or hunted with used a .30-06 — and in a pump or semi! There’s a name for that, it’s called “copycating”! “Everyone has” or “Everyone knows…”, being the most common answer that justifies choices (or answers to problems that don’t exist)!

3) Less recoil. We have at least a couple of generations of hunters whose employment in 60% to 70% of cases involves computer work, mostly at a desk or in a vehicle. As to others — clerks, sales personnel, tradesmen, etc., there’s a lot of sitting or standing, hardly any of which is going to develop and maintain good muscular development and physical strength. Kids like computer games and watching TV — and so do some parents, especially after a “hard day at the office!”

So we, and I include myself due to my professional career which has involved a sedentary lifestyle in my office, cars or homes and hospitals. So, I’ve had to work at staying fit, especially as I age. Fortunately, I’ve also been an outdoors person from childhood, and active in sports and camping as well. Then, perhaps, genetics have maintained a more youthful attitude along with a younger body than most of my years — at least I’ve been told that more than a few times. All credit to God.

Whatever the case, I firmly believe, apart from physical concerns, that attitude is the principle factor in dealing with recoil along with learning suitable techniques. Some small women have learned how to deal with the recoil from “fierce magnums” such as a .338 Win Mag or even a .460 Weatherby! So, most of that is attitude which says: “Yes, it might hurt me, but there are worse hurts in life and I’ll not let this one beat me!” That’s a practical and tough attitude that compels one to learn how to shoot Big Bores without flinching!

So, how powerful is my Ruger No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum? The short answer is VERY! (The pic above was taken last October, 2019 — with my Ruger No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum loaded with the 300gr TSX at 2778 fps/5140 ft-lbs. Max best load for the 300 TSX is 2944 fps/5773 ft-lbs into sub-moa.)

A longer answer is it can make up to 6000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle. Or 338 TE (Terminal Effect). What do such numbers mean? Well, compared to a .30-06 shooting a 180 or 220gr with best handloads, that’s about twice the “power”. Or a .30-06’s TE is 81, which is about 1/4 that of the.458 WIN. Or a .30-06’s Taylor KO=25, and the .458 Win is 75 KO, or 3x that of the .30-06. Take your pick according to YOUR biases.

I do know that the recoil of equal weight rifles of 8.5 lbs in the .30-06 and .458 WIN, using the best loads as indicated above will look like this: 26 ft-lbs for the ’06 and 82 for the .458, or a little over 3 times. That’s based on momentum and the Taylor KO value is also a little over 3 times. My TE is 4 times based on momentum squared.

Practically, that would suggest that if the.30-06 is viable for a 2000 lb beast, then the .458 should be for an 8000 lb beast, which I think is reasonable based on scores of reviews I’ve done. Of course, brain shots alter all equations!

What many who want to debate the issue don’t consider is that bullet diameter (caliber) is a major factor, as expressed in most formulas. Mine uses it, but it’s hidden by the math. But it’s not like it doesn’t matter therefore. Really? Change the caliber and see for yourself that the result changes! The CSA (cross-sectional-area) of a .458 -cal is .165 sq-in. A .308 -cal is .074 sq-in. That’s 2.23 times larger. If the expanded bullet is 2x diameter of a .458 that’s a sq-in area of .658.659 sq-in or 4 TIMES the sq-in of a non-expanded .458! Do the same for a .308-cal .074 x 4 =.296 sq-in, or less than half that of the .458-cal. Add the momentum which is 2x that of a .30-06 and the KE which is 2x that of the .30-06, and what do we have? 4x the effect? Perhaps, maybe not, as there are a multitude of other factors involved: Bullet construction, shape, sectional density and placement of bullet.

I use a formula as a guide if I need to, or want to. Yet after more than a century and a half of internal and external ballistic studies, no formula seems to capture the emotions of the animal or it’s will to live despite multiple shots “in the boiler room”.

I close with this anecdote: Quite a few years ago — about 40 — I was found in a gun shop of the Toronto region. I was in my forties and a slightly younger but larger man was behind the counter. Another older potential client was engaging the salesman in a very interesting conversation over what it takes to bring down a large adrenaline-charged, wounded whitetail buck that is bounding through thick brush at 10 to 15 yards away. I listened as I was contemporaneously handloading a .30-06, and the talk was about that rifle cartridge. The man behind the counter took over the conversation in describing in very picturesque form what was happening from his vantage point. The whitetail had been seriously wounded by multiple shots which was only discovered after the fact. The whitetail buck that weighed in at close to 400 lbs was still bounding at head high through a thick tangle of brush when he (the salesman behind the counter) opened fire with his Valmet semi in .30-06. The clip was unloaded before the animal hit the ground dead! In dressing it out he found multiple bullets (obviously they hadn’t completely penetrated).

The points of that hunting history lesson were several: 1) An adrenaline-charged game animal, even wounded, isn’t the same animal as the one that was at rest, or tip-toeing softly through underbrush. 2) The flight of a whitetail is something to behold — they don’t run or bound in a straight line, and their bounds are not even or all the same height. 3) The caliber of choice in such an unanticipated encounter should be larger than smaller because there’s no time or space for precision shooting. (By the way — if I may choose an illustration from professional sports… The “jump” for a 18 – 19 year old hockey player in the AHL (American Hockey League) to the NHL is much greater than anticipated by the player even though he’s been forewarned and educated in theory that “time and space” in the NHL will involve much faster reflexes and thinking than at the slower speed of the AHL. Many who are “good” enough in the AHL never make it in the NHL due to those two factors.) In other words, what seems “good enough” under “normal” hunting conditions may completely fail under more demanding conditions of the mood and physical status of the animal, and worse still if compounded by the physical conditions of terrain, such as in the case of the large, adrenaline-charged buck bounding through hair-thick underbrush!

That’s also why PHs, in tracking wounded DG into thick jesse, mostly tote a large-bore rifle, likely larger than that of the client!

And that’s also why hunting guides who deal with wounded bears in the alders go in with a large bore rifle. My friend, Canadian Kelly Ross (writer for Sports Afield), and outfitter for black bear and moose, also totes a .458 Win Mag.

Thus also I have chosen Big Bores for most hunting conditions of larger/dangerous game here in Ontario.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why I hunt — its benefits

I hunt for two basic reasons: 1) It’s in my DNA, and 2) There are personal benefits as well as social. (Left click on photos for a better view.)

I’m a hunter from birth. I found that out at a very young age, though I knew nothing about DNA. There were hunters on both sides of my family. Of course, in those days a lot of it had to do with putting meat on the table — at least that’s what they said. But they all had access to raised beef, pork, chicken and fish, and many were commercial fishermen.

My dad was the eldest son of a fisherman, born in 1897 on a small island at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy (highest tides in the world) and literally on the border that separated Canada and the USA — New Brunswick from Maine. His father was Canadian and his mother American (I’m Canadian from New Brunswick, and my wife is American from Maine, the same as my paternal grandparents.). Fishing was the main industry, but it was seasonal. Therefore, many of the families owned a cow, a pig and some chickens for milk, eggs and meat, along with seawater crustaceans and various species of fish. So no one really needed to hunt, but in the fall of each year a certain number of them left the island by boat and travelled to the mainland of New Brunswick for deer hunting. Most did it because it was something unconventional and they could use a more diverse diet. It was also an adventure.

Sometime after he finished school, my dad moved to Boston, and then Providence, RI, for further studies and work — making good money there. He could do that without all the hassles encountered in today’s world because America was developing industries (ex: FORD) and needed workers, and because he was considered an American citizen due to his mother being American — and also the fact that crossing borders for work between Canada and the USA was a common thing. But his fiancé was still on Campobello Island working in one of the wealthy American estates — the large Roosevelt estate being one of them. So he returned to Campobello to marry my mother, and after purchasing ten acres of land with buildings on the western shoreline, he bought a boat and remained there as a commercial fisherman.

(Some of today’s fleet at the same port as my dad fished from

— about 300 yards from our house.)>

Interestingly, my dad never brought home the venison, but his younger brother did. That was my uncle — my dad said he was an excellent shot. On my mom’s side of the family, her father and uncle (along with several other aunts and uncles) were from “Upper New Brunswick”, not from a fishing community, but from “deer country”, and her uncle in particular (my great uncle) was an avid hunter, though also a preacher! So, can I blame my uncle, on my father’s side and my great uncle on my mother’s side for my genetic disposition to be a hunter? Let’s just say that it was in the family trees!

I started hunting on my dad’s cousin’s properties on the other side of the main dirt road, away from the shore line (we didn’t have woods on ours, except a couple of apple trees). Then the “woods” extended further into “no man’s land”, actually owned by an American company that hardly anyone knew about, so “we” just used it for “war games” and “hunting” little creatures. My mighty weapon was a BB gun that I plinked tin cans with as well as shooting apples off the old apple tree (you couldn’t eat them — they’d gone wild). And I’d sneak into the “woods” with it looking for a rabbit that was hopefully caught in one of my snares. No, I never shot anything living with it, but it sure added to those adventures hidden away where no one could find me if I didn’t want them to. Those were exciting and joy-filled days!

Later, I graduated to a single-shot real gun, a .22 LR rim fire. I shot some live sea gulls and skunks with that one. “Gulls”! Yes, there were millions of them, and no one gave a second thought about it — and no laws against it! And no license needed or available for anything other than ducks, deer and moose. Well, we didn’t have moose on the Island — that we knew of — a few deer from time to time, and hundreds of ducks, but few there were who bothered with licenses. There was nobody there to enforce rules, if they existed. I drove my dad’s Chrysler from age 15 without a license until age 18 when I got my first. But there were no police and I had to go off the Island by ferry, landing in Maine, then an hour’s drive to St. Stephens, N.B. to get one. (For nearly 1/2 century, the Roosevelt International Bridge has connected the Island with Maine.)

My real hunting career began in central New Brunswick after college, marriage and a job as pastor of three churches on a weekly basis, and a fourth on a monthly. We were in the middle of New Brunswick. N.B. is a somewhat square-shaped province that borders on Maine, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Atlantic Ocean. If you draw a line from the NW point (bordering Maine and Quebec) to the SE corner (bordering the Atlantic and Nova Scotia), and draw another line from the NE (bordering Quebec and the Atlantic) to the SW (bordering Maine and the Atlantic (Bay of Fundy), the two lines will intersect near the dead-center of the province. My work as a pastor took me a little south and west of that, and where I got involved as a serious deer and grouse hunter. (If you enlarge the map, there’s a triangle of towns in that area: Nashwaak Bridge, Stanley and Mcgivney. We lived three miles NE of Stanley where the main church was located, about 35 miles directly north of Fredericton, the Provincial Capital. The other two were in Nashwaak Bridge and Mcgivney.) It was mostly farming and lumber industries. For recreation there was hunting, and fishing in the numerous streams (mostly speckled and rainbows).  A deer license cost somewhere between $2.50 and $5, and could be used on bear. (A deer or bear license in Ontario today is $41 each, a small game license nearly as much, and moose is more. Plus a license for your gun, good for 5 years, and for all firearms except for those designated “restricted”).

In hunting I’ve taken more small game and varmints than any other class, which is perhaps normal for most hunters in today’s world who have spent a few years in the field. In addition I’ve harvested deer, bear and moose. I don’t need to hunt for survival. Few, very few, NEED to hunt to fulfil that purpose. But, nonetheless, I need to hunt for other reasons.

Why?

1. Genetics, as stated.
2. Health: since you’re reading this, I doubt that I need to explain, but I will anyway.
3. To help manage ecological diversity.

To avoid overmuch repetition, indulge me for another couple of minutes or so of reading. I’ve stated that hunting is in me. Or adventure. Aren’t there other means for adventure, such as climbing mountains or watching waterfalls? Sure. But we don’t have real mountains here in Ontario, and waterfalls? Niagara Falls is overly commercialised. Been there, done that twice — and likely never again! There is no outdoor activity (adventure) that fulfils that inner thirst… drive… or however we may want to describe it, like walking a wilderness with surprises through the next valley, or over the next ridge, or across the next stream, around the next bend where you might unexpectedly run into a bear, moose, wolf, beaver, or…… you name it — carrying a firearm capable for any situation, especially a rifle. You see, it’s much, much more than killing something. It’s reliving my boyhood dreams and emotions for adventure that would take me into mysterious and forbidden places. It’s what our forefathers experienced in coming to our shores and developing nationhood! It’s a thirst for all that and more.

Health of body and soul isn’t primarily found in a pill bottle, or exotic foods and drinks, but deeply related to our roots and imagination. I confess to owning a great imagination! Not only is “the book” on me true in that regard, but it is really so! “Anything is possible”, it says of my personality type, and I think that way — “For with God nothing shall be impossible” – (The Scriptures). That’s one reason (not the only one) I  believe in God who is quoted as saying of Himself, “Is anything too hard for me?” Think about that! In your body there are something over 30 trillion cells, (30,000,000,000,000) and each one contains your DNA with about 3.1 billion bits of information that makes you, YOU!! And each cell is a veritable factory! Darwin was ignorant of all that, and yet people still bow at his shrine as though he were some kind of god. As to atoms in the average mature human, it can’t yet be counted, but it’s somewhere around 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! And someone want’s to discredit your makeup, or mine, saying it’s all merely an accident of “nature” without planning or purpose! And I’m accused of being naive and credulous because I believe the Bible and in God as Creator… com’on, give me a break!

Genetically, I’m a hunter and adventurer! And health wise, I need to fulfil that!

But more than that, wildlife biologists universally agree that numbers of particular species need to be managed or they will destroy not only ecological systems, but themselves and other species of animal and plant life with them.

Practically, we see and experience that: Whitetail deer in North America have multiplied in numbers exponentially over the last half century, causing havoc on major highways while eating themselves out of natural foods. As the number of wolves increase, the numbers of moose, deer and elk diminish in proportion. That’s not fantasy, but fact. Also, they have become a threat to domestic animals such as sheep and cattle. Coyotes are a living threat to lambs and calves. And bears take more than their share of wildlife and domestic as well.

I make no bones over the issue that in these days I’m primarily a predator hunter, including bears, wolves and coyote. And I encourage other hunters who mostly hunt deer and moose, to add a bear tag — and many are doing so as the moose population in Ontario has taken a beating over the past few decades — and not caused by over-hunting!

Please read this if you need more information: http://www.ontarioblackbears.com

Next time: Can a Christian be a hunter?

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL