A “BRUSH RIFLE” — what is it? – P2

In P1, qualities were presented that I’d want in a rifle that might work well for close-in hunting (such as in brush) as well as having some “reach” to 300 – 400 yards/meters. A few suggestions were made.

P1 was concluded with the remark that I’ve owned such rifles, and currently own one. That is a rifle that could be very useful in close-quarter hunting and also in possible long distance shooting of LG. But before we do that, I’ll briefly rehearse the three criteria described in part one:

I want such a rifle to be fully capable of fulfilling these merits:

1. Reliable
2. Safe
3. Light & handy

In a description of  “Light & handy”, I proposed that a common bolt-action, such as found in a 22″ barrelled .30-06 might be the option of many. In fact, “might be” is not likely strong enough. It probably would be the choice of many. So, I’ll not debate that choice here other than to repeat that it would not be, and is not, my choice because of some experience with that cartridge and the physical conditions under which most of my BG hunts  have taken place.

(I had stepped out of thick bush to the edge of a marsh that extends 400 yards in the direction of the photo. But to the right it reaches to nearly 1 km. There were scattered moose tracks throughout the area. While this is not Northern Ontario, it is representative of that region and Central Ontario.)

To state it succinctly, there are BETTER cartridges if we want one for BOTH close-quarter hunting of large game, and/or big game that may become hazardous to one’s health and welfare in the blink-of-an-eye, as well as some possible long-distance shooting of wounded game (by client or self). In many situations, as previously described when I hunted both moose and bear in Northern Ontario, the only shot presented in a week of hunting might be on a moose at 500 – 600 yards. Or, since there were big piles of large bear scat in BOTH open areas AND in thick brush, I needed to be prepared for ANY SHOT, far or in-your-face!

Make no mistake – I’ve toted .30-06s with handloads in hunting whitetails under similar conditions, but that was less than an hour’s drive from home. And I wasn’t hunting bear or moose! I’m not suggesting that the .30-06 is inadequate for moose or bear under IDEAL conditions. “IDEAL” for many is close to home where they can “pick” when and where to shoot. For others it means with an outfitter. Others, still, will be partners of a group that can “blast away” at a wounded beast.

My consideration is for myself under the conditions described — ALONE! Even when hunting moose with a companion, we were only together when leaving camp. Then each of us went off in different directions to cover as much territory as possible in a few days of hunting. So, in effect — I was alone and dependant on personal skill sets, and my rifle!

(Sitting in a bear blind waiting for a buck to come up over the ridge, my nearest partner was 90 kilometers from me at home. That was my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT.)

In bear hunts (as well as deer) I’ve mostly been sitting in a ground blind, or tree stand, or scouting, ALONE with no help nearby. Therefore, I want a rifle and load that I’m overly familiar with — knowing it’s full potential — that Also has:

4) More than ample power: 

Why? “Just enough” or “ample” suggests precision shooting on a stationary target that has presented itself broadside, or nearly so. I’ve watched many videos on that sort of thing, usually with a team and an outfitter or PH. The shooter/hunter is micro-managed in his/her shot, and anything less than a broadside is frowned upon!

In a DIY hunt, or alone, it might become a case of “any shot possible”, or “shoot now!” in a case of survival!

That’s why I CHOOSE MORE THAN AMPLE, and that’s not a .30-06.

Here’s a quote from the renowned, former PH, Dr. Kevin Robertson: “I’m very much a heavy bullet for caliber man … I like the heavier option simply because some shots may be at animals not ideally positioned. Heavier bullets contain more momentum and this makes them penetrate better on less than ideal shots” — SPORTS AFIELD, October, 2009.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Indeed, I have said it dozens of times! That statement was made in reference to a question in regard to the .30-06 in use for larger plains game. So, his recommendation for, and IF the .30-06 was to be used, to employ the heaviest bullet with the greatest SD and momentum. He wasn’t suggesting a .30-06 as the BEST option, but since the potential client was intending to use it for plains game, what bullet should he choose? But Dr. Robertson’s remark was in regard to the principle he enunciated: a heavy bullet for caliber because of the prospect of bad angles! And that would be WITH a PH at his shoulder! AND, that would also be with “PREMIUM” bullets! Heavy for caliber with the BEST bullets!

Kevin Robertson has also spoken very favorably of the 9.3 x 62, and that was long before “premiums”, as such, were available. Or before MVs had evolved to what is possible today with the best powders.

(Left click on photo for a better view.)

That is my choice of a cartridge and rifle in a handy bolt-action that can fulfil all expectations as a “BRUSH RIFLE” as well as a long-range shooter of BG. It has replaced all my mediums from a .338 Win Mag to a .375 H&H… It can do anything as well, or better, depending on conditions and load.

That’s a bold statement, and will evoke a negative reaction from some who are traditional in their thinking, or who lack experience in handloading this great cartridge. Admittedly, the average handloader of the 9.3 x 62 will be content with traditional loads, believed to be adequate or “enough”… I’m not one of them! In handloading, I want the best for the job at hand, not just adequate.

As that concerns medium bores, I don’t need one of each, though I’ve owned and used several of them — often in more than one version. In .338-cal, I’ve owned and used a 20″ and a 26″ in .338 Win Mag; a 26″ .340 Wby; two 22″ .35 Whelens,  a couple of .350 Rem Mags, and a 22″, 24″ and 26″ in .375 H&H. When I say that my 9.3 x 62 can do anything they could, I’m not living in a fantasy world! And it only has a 22.44″ barrel. When loaded with four cartridges, a 3-9x by 40mm scope, a 1″ nylon sling, it tilts the scales at 7.7 lbs.

As concerns its best hunting load for large game, it produces 4365 ft-lbs from the 286 Nosler Partition. That load matches the .340 Weatherby 250gr Partition load in momentum from the muzzle to 500 yards! Then, there is the 320gr Woodleigh at 2464 fps that matches or exceeds the .375 H&H in momentum firing a 300gr at 2600 fps.

So, yes, I’d concur with Drs Heath and Robertson, who wrote that they failed to see any distinction in effect on Cape buffalo when using either their 9.3 x 62’s or their .375 H&H’s. Not that I have their experience, but I can read ballistic charts.

I have utmost confidence in my 9.3 x 62 for “brush hunting” of anything I might personally point it at in my limited N.A. area. And that would include wolf, bear, moose and elk, as well as big whitetails that can attain 400 lbs. Moreover, I’d also take it for brown bear and grizzly, given the opportunity. And you could add to that, large moose to 500 yards! So, is my favorite “medium” capable as a “Brush Rifle”?

As to what we may term, “dedicated” brush guns,there are several of course. I’ve owned at least two, and perhaps more if a 12-gauge is included with slugs. But this is about rifles.

The first was kept for a full decade, and was indeed a dedicated brush rifle: A Ruger 96/44 in .44 Remington Magnum. It was more powerful than a .30-30, and equal to a .35 Remington in KE, but surpassed it in TE within the ranges intended – less than 100 yards.

Here are some handloads: (I did shoot some Federal factory 300gr hardcasts through it for information.)

270gr Speer – 1800+ fps/1942 ft-lbs avg.
300gr Hornady XTP – 1725 fps/1982 ft-lbs (Dec/02)
300gr Speer – 1692 fps/1907 ft-lbs (18/12/02)

This rifle was used for trail walking and bringing bait for bears.

The other rifle that could have been considered a “brush rifle” was a Marlin 1895 G, with the short 18.5″ barrel. But it had the infamous “ports”, and while it went hunting, and I developed a lot of handloads for it that were fired at the range with muffs on, in woody conditions it was way too loud!! So… it went down the road. Marlin has since done away with the ports and sell a pile of the “G” models. From 400s and 405s, I got something over 2000 fps using AA2015.

Having already mentioned the .375 Ruger in its short 20″ barrelled “Alaskan” model as a potential brush gun, maybe the .416 Ruger in a 20″ version should be viewed as a possible candidate as well. While likely seen as “overpowered” for such a theme, there’s no doubt it finds itself doing that job admirably in Alaskan and African close-quarter operations. If it were the only firearm I owned, I’m sure I could find reason enough to employ it in brush hunting of both bear and moose here in our province. A quality 350gr at 2400 to 2600 fps would make some sense.

Still, in this context, how could I fail to give consideration to my most highly prized Big Bore – the excellent .458 Winchester Magnum. All matters considered, it is the best of the Big Bores. And at a mere 40″ total length, including a 24-inch barrel, my Ruger Tropical No.1 is 2.4″ shorter than my 9.3 x 62.

Yesterday (Apr. 30/19), I invested a couple of hours at our range (setting up the Chrony, Lead Sled and targets included) firing some new loads. The fastest was a 350gr TSX at 2760 fps/5919 ft-lbs, and the slowest was a 500gr Hornady RN at 2218 fps/5461 ft-lbs. In between were 480gr DGX’s, 450gr TSX’s, a 450gr Swift AF, and 400gr Barnes Busters.

But hey, here is the complete list corrected to MV:
500 Hornady (74 grs A2230) = 2218 (this load gave 2227 in my former CZ550 with a 25″ barrel) COL = 3.56″
500 Hornady (75 grs A2230 = (gave a low – false reading – don’t know why, but it could be increased by 1/2 gr according to case head expansion) COL = 3.56″
500 Hornady (81 grs H335) = 2233 (max load with this powder – max allowable expansion for continued use of case) COL = 3.56″

480 DGX (82 grs H335) = 2262 (low case expansion – could be increased by 1- grain) COL = 3.56″
480 DGX (76 grs A2230 = 2272 (max case expansion) COL = 3.56″

450 TSX (82 grs H335 = 2290 (no brass expansion – this was 1-gr less than a previous test. Will go to 84 grs next time) COL = 3.68″
450 TSX (76 grs A2230)= 2326 (could increase by 1-grain) COL = 3.69″

450 Swift AF (84 grs H335) = 2414/5822 ft-lbs (max with this powder for continued use of the case. This bullet has responded very well in my rifle.)
COL = 3.565″

400 Barnes Buster (83 grs H335) = 2381 COL = 3.28″
400 Barnes Buster (83 grs H335) = 2388 (These are hard bullets, and case head expansion is near max. So I’ll not try to increase this load more than 1/2 gr) COL = 3.28″

350 TSX (81 grs H4198) = 2760/5919 ft-lbs (This is the same result I received from my former CZ550 with 1-grain less at 80 grs. But the CZ had a 1-inch longer barrel. Pressure was not over max.) COL = 3.46″

Now, what could I do with all that?

First of all, they are test loads for my Ruger No.1 in .458.

Secondly: I’ll do some over, and increase some loads giving more opportunity to A2230 and H4895.

Thirdly: I plan on some reduced loads, like the 480 DGX that shows real promise at around 1750 – 1800 fps. That will likely be through the use of RL-15.

Also, I have a couple more reduced loads, garnered from my former CZ:
405 Remington at just over 2000 using RL-15, and the
350 Hornady using the same load of RL-15

A BRUSH RIFLE?

Yeah, I have one… maybe a couple!

I know, I know, the .458 is NOT “light”, but it is handy. At over 10 lbs, and with the ports, it makes life very bearable in the recoil department. But if a big bruin shows up here this spring, recoil will only be like a normal 12-gauge turkey load.

Oh yeah… about points 5,6 and 7 — My Ruger No.1 and Tikka T3 aren’t “Safe Queens”; and surely you’ve noticed that handloads are the only way to improve the ballistics of any rifle, and they both have good scopes for real close or far; and dark places….

“But it’s a single-shot!”, some would cry out in alarm! I KNOW THAT! How many shots do you need?

Til the next,

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

 

 

 

“A BRUSH RIFLE” –what is it? – P1

I’ve hunted moose in places where there were thick tangles of alder patches that you couldn’t always get to where you wanted to go unless you passed through them; vision was often less than three yards! Did I carry a “brush gun”? No, not exactly according to what is generally described as a “brush rifle”.  But then, almost any rifle suited for big game could become a temporary brush rifle. For example: I toted my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag  for moose one season in Northern Ontario where the terrain was very mixed. At times there was heavy bush land that included thick alder patches; at others it was open clear cuts where a moose might be caught crossing at up to 600 meters. Still other contexts might dictate a shot across a small lake or marsh. Then there were what seemed like mini-mountains to climb. Moose sign was found in all of those landscapes, so my .458 at times was called upon to be a “brush gun” and at others a flat-shooting magnum!

(Left click on photos for a better view.)

But aside from the fact that many rifles could perform all such tasks quite effectively, yet the question still begs to be more clearly defined as to what is intended when someone says: “The rifle I used for whitetails last year was my brush gun”.

Do you have one, or maybe several? How would you describe them as distinct from others in your safe or cabinet?

Let’s delve into that and see if it’s really possible to make such distinctions. Note that I’ve already set a parameter in suggesting “brush rifles” for BIG game (BG). So this isn’t a topic on suitable brush rifles for rabbit hunting! No, I’m thinking suitable for big whitetails and on up to whatever I may have a tag for.

I have in mind four types of actions that would, under most conditions, be suitable, and cartridges suited to those types of rifles: Levers, semis, pumps and bolts. Yes, and even a fifth type that would be suitable with some qualifications: a single-shot.

In qualifying a rifle as suitable for brush or woods hunting of BG, I want the following attributes:

1) Reliable
2) Safe
3) Light & handy
4) More than ample power
5) Not for beauty or a “safe queen”
6) Easy to develop handloads for
7) A reliable scope of ample brightness. If a variable, it must have a low power of not more than 3x with an exit beam of not less than 5mm.

Let’s review each of those points, and suggest some appropriate rifles and their cartridges:

Reliable:

It should go without saying, but a rifle in any hunting context should be reliable. But some types of hunts MUST, without any qualifications demand reliability, especially if DG are involved at close quarters. And that is not a reference to African DG in particular, but where brush hunting of any game might involve a last chance opportunity, or confrontation with a beast that could become very aggressive in its attempts to escape. That could be a large buck whitetail, or a cow moose protecting her calf, or a sow bear accompanied by cubs, etc.

I’ve even had new rifles fail! We should NEVER assume that because a rifle is new — or new to us — that it will work flawlessly, each and every time, because of name brand, or purchased from a friend, or even on the recommendation of a family member or gum shop owner.

A good hunting buddy of mine purchased a custom .270 Winchester on the recommendation of a retired police officer and qualifier of potential hunters. He also was a non-licensed gun smith, and a good friend of my friend. The rifle was part of an auction of a recently deceased collector who was well known to the former police officer, and highly regarded.

My friend was not a handloader, so he purchased high quality Federal Premium 150gr ammo loaded with Partitions for a bear hunt in partnership with myself. For the hunt we were separated by 3.5 kms in dense forest. He also was accompanied by a mutual friend of ours. They “picked straws” (actually matches) to determine who would get the first chance on a bruin coming to the bait at about 35 yards. My friend Ken, who bought the .270 got the “luck of the draw”. It didn’t take long when an over-size black bruin came cautiously to the bait. Ken, a trained officer of the law, is a good marksman. He squeezed the trigger of his “new” .270 Winchester, and all anyone heard in the dead stillness of the dark forest, including the over-size bruin, was a deafening “CLICK”! But from 35 yards the bear didn’t run away… but quickly its head turned in the direction of their blind! The silence was overwhelming! What to do? Ken had two options: One – to re-cock and pull the trigger again (Not as noisy by simply raising the bolt and closing it again), or two — extract the faulty cartridge and re-chamber a new round with the bear staring them down! Ken chose option two…. “SQUEEEEK”, and in a flash the bear was gone… FOREVER! From what was told to me later that evening by Ken and Frank, — and by a passer-by the following week who said he saw a bear on the road, just about 50 yards from the bait setup, that “stood five feet tall”? “No”, he said, “that was on all fours, not standing like a man”–  that bear was probably 500+ lbs! And it was lost due to a faulty rifle!

(Six shots at 100 from my 9.3 x 62)

All that to emphasise the emphatic NEED to shoot at least a couple of boxes of factory ammo in a “new” rifle BEFORE the hunt! Ken took his “beautiful” .270 to his friend who took the bolt apart and found grease inside that over time had hardened while in a safe. Of course, a dedicated handloader would be a member of a club where he could practice and run a rifle through its paces that sooner or later who reveal any defects.

I would never take a rifle on a hunt that I had any remaining concerns over. Yet, my 673 Remington in .350 Rem Mag gave me an unexpected shock when a slight bump caused the floor plate to spring open dumping the ammo on the ground after clattering on the plastic chair that was my seat in a bear hunt… that hunt was also over!!

Some things may be optional in a hunt, but not reliability of your rifle.

SAFE:

In brush hunting, the ever lurking danger is for a twig or branch to get caught in the trigger guard, and by times unknowingly. So a safety that works under all conditions is paramount. I prefer a tang safety that is operated by the thumb, and is minimal in height. I know this will offend any who follow “the crowd”, but while I’ve used the M70 three position “wing” safety, I don’t like them. Some others don’t like the dual safety of the Marlin Big Bores, which is actually one of the safest rifles – and perhaps THE safest on the market with the cross bolt that blocks the hammer — IF you use it! Also, another present danger in woods or brush hunting in rugged terrain is the potential of being tripped by an unseen object like a root or rock. Then, on the side of a ridge where there’s bare rock or grass wetted by recent rains, one can easily experience a fall. Is our rifle in safe hands in such an event where we intuitively want to grab a rock, branch or tree for support? Those are dangerous moments that we need to be prepared for before such an unhappy event! A well known hunting consultant and TV personality ended up shooting his PH in the back right shoulder with his .458 Win Mag as he hurried to back away from an elephant charge. His PH was just in front of him and took the full charge, not of the elephant, but of a 500gr Nosler completely through his shoulder. He survived but his guiding career was over! The TV personality said he slipped in quickly backing away and tripped over a branch or root! But his finger was in the trigger guard without the safety “ON”!

But being “safe” in gun handling starts with good habits and a mind that doesn’t take safety for granted… our own or that of any others in close proximity.

I’ve used a lot of Marlin BIG BORES with the “extra” security of the cross -bolt, and never found it a handicap when I needed to shoot something.

Absolutely, I want a safe rifle in any environment, but especially in country filled with potential hazards to personal welfare. I don’t take anything for granted.

LIGHT & HANDY:

<(That’s a 38″ single-shot .45-70, loaded with Hornady 325gr at 2400 fps for wolf. It weighed a little over 7 lbs ready. The longest shot available in that area was 165 yards along an open and straight stretch of the trail. There were three wolves travelling it just before I arrived.)

Yes, there does exist what we might respectfully call “a Brush Rifle”. One of the enduring features that singles it out more than any other is “light and short”. Add other features such as: tough, powerful and quick handling, and we have the quintessential “BRUSH RIFLE”. Additional characteristics might be found in type of stock, scope and action.

Let’s give some credit where it is due, and make some suggestions:

1) The Ruger Alaskan in .375 Ruger. This has to be one of the best “brush rifles” currently in production. With a 20″ barrel and a .30-06 length action it comes in a very potent chambering, the .375 Ruger. In my view, and obviously that of many Alaskans and others, it’s a brillant concept — especially for a handloader. It has become a favorite of Alaskan guides in protection of clients who hunt the big bears.

Again, from my perspective, it would serve just as well in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. But not to limit it to those regions of North America, it’s utility could be unleashed in the Rocky Mountain states as well as Canada’s western provinces, and Ontario for large black bears, moose and elk.

Due to it’s potential power, it’s range would not be limited to 300 yards in the case of larger animals. Yes, the 20″ barrel will loose approximately 150 fps (depending on actual load), but with the “right bullet” it should still be ample for moose or elk to 400 yards. At woods ranges it would only be “more ample”!

Savage produced one a few years ago with an 18″ tube, but that might prove to be too short, creating more muzzle blast, and an additional reduction in effect (“power”) that would be considered unwarranted. In other words, a barrel that short (18″) could upset the balance of such a short, powerful bolt action, and lose too much velocity that the extra -2″ might very well create, that any gains would be negated by the deficits. An extra 2″ one way or the other will not disqualify a rifle as a “brush gun”.

2) Marlin’s (or Winchester) lever actions are noted for their strength and reliability in woods hunting. That, along with their potential “power” has made them favorites for deer, bear, elk and moose at ranges up to around 250 yards with appropriate handloads. I’ve used the 1895 in .45-70 for a lot of bruin huntin’. But the ranges were usually 100 yards or less. However, in developing computer-generated ballistic profiles, I discovered long ago that several of my favorite loads could be effective on large moose to 300 yards.

In bear hunts an 1895 Marlin was among my favorites, and for moose it often went along as a backup.

3) A light and handy bolt action that is also reasonably capable of dealing with any hunting situation normally encountered in North America, and most of the rest of the world.

The Ruger .375 is one, as noted at the beginning of this section. However, it is not a “light” rifle, but then, neither is the Marlin 1895 with scope and ammo. They qualify as handy (overall length) and powerful, but not as “light”, or possibly “quick”.

I’m thinking here of a general-purpose BG bolt action rifle not longer than 42″ (OL). Generally, most of these would be a medium bore (.338 to .375). I’ve written quite a lot over the past few years on this genre.

What it amounts to is a bolt-action repeater of the approximate length and weight of a ubiquitous .30-06 in a synthetic stock with a medium weight 22″ barrel. All up, with scope, ammo and sling it would come in at about 7.5 to 8.5 lbs. Though a .30-06 would be the choice of many, it is not mine.

Mine would be, as mentioned, a medium bore from .338 to .375 if I wanted it to reach out a bit beyond 400 yards in the case of “have to” on large game (LG). It could ALSO serve as a near perfect “brush rifle” using one load for far or near.

I have such a rifle — and I’ve owned others. (More details coming up in P2 as well as the rest of the desired qualities in a “BRUSH RIFLE”)

Til the next,

Happy Easter to one and all: The Easter message is found in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth: 1 Corinthians, chapter 15.

BOB MITCHELL

Rifle Bullets — how they work.

The round ball has been described by then author, Ross Seyfried, as the perfect projectile. It may have been at a certain time in history but, other than current usage in shotguns, it fell out of favor about a century-and-a-half ago to be replaced by more aerodynamic designs. Whatever may have been their main attributes, they have long since been replaced not only by those that resist atmospheric drag better, but also by great improvements in construction and style. Enhanced engineering capability and practical issues have forced the evolution of both pragmatic thinking and re-tooling by bullet manufacturers; most of which came about as a product of multiple wars. That is, in a melancholy sense, a terrible reality that still imposes a somewhat negative perception of guns and bullets on current “civilized society”. So those of us who use them in recreational activities must live with that awareness — like it or not. My first big-game rifle was a British Jungle Carbine in .303, and for most other Canadian hunters of my generation as well. Americans have had a love affair with their ex-military rifles chambered in .30-06, which has been carried on in just about every production sporting rifle to this day. But that didn’t happen with the various editions of the Brit .303, though many military rifles of that chambering are still in use for hunting purposes across Northern Canada; usually in a somewhat modified form.

For myself, the study of ballistics and bullets is related to a scientific bent, and a pragmatic one. I want to know what works best, and why. Or the corollary of that being: what doesn’t work as well, and why. Of course, the experience of others, and self, may shorten the process to the pragmatic issue of what works best, but begs the issue of “why”. Some of us must find out for ourselves — which may be “the hard way”, but in the end often more satisfying.

What works “best” may NOT be a premium bullet in certain applications; and what may be considered an inferior bullet may actually work excellently in other applications. So, it’s not just a matter of the latest and most costly that should determine our choice for every use.

< This bullet is a prime example of how a “cheap” Remington bullet may do it’s intended work as well as a Swift A-Frame that costs four times as much. It was a 200gr, .35-cal fired from a Marlin chambered for the .35 Remington. It immediately terminated a very good bear from a few yards leaving the muzzle at about 2100 fps, as handloaded by a good friend. And make note of the fact that it was a ROUND NOSE SP that seems to be left on dealers shelves these days in favor of the sleek-slippery kind!

Over time, I have collected a small number of bullets from game, and a larger number from personal tests in various media: conducted to determine comparative results of bullets designed for similar purposes.

EXPANDING BULLETS for hunting purposes are made that way to “dump” as much kinetic energy as possible into the vitals of an animal before exit. That is the usual way of looking at matters in as brief a statement as possible. However, as we all should know by now, there’s more to it than that.

Kinetic energy is an important factor, but is it the only one? As understanding of the issues involved have come to light, professional hunters, guides, regular hunters, and ballisticians have finally come to an agreement on a couple of key issues regarding the clean termination of big game:

1) The bullet must expand (exception: solids for their very limited use) and retain a majority of their initial weight. Some bullets are designed to lose a portion of the frontal part, such as the Partition and CEB Raptors. But they must still retain enough weight and momentum for adequate penetration through a vital area.

There are various claims as to whose bullet does that job best. Some measure success based on percentage of weight retained after complete expansion. Swift is one such company that claims at least a 95% weight retention after impact with flesh and bone. And pretty pictures are presented to back up such a claim. Of course, in such a scenario, the bullet has NOT produced an exit wound that a majority seem to think necessary IF the bullet has a success story to tell.

Every bullet retrieved from an animal stayed INSIDE the animal and there was NO EXIT! And, moreover, if it was found inside the animal, we must assume, by nature of the circumstance, it died prior to the necropsy!

Some say a bullet failed if it “exploded”, or came apart, inside the animal! Others proclaim that a bullet succeeded if the bullet made a significant exit wound whereby they could track the animal from 50 to 200 yards from a blood spore! Where I live and hunt, I’d choose the former as I prefer a dead animal where it was shot to one that I may have to search for in a ravine or thick bush in the dark — especially if it is noted for being of the hazardous sort! That’s speaking from having experienced both scenarios.

I’ve had Partitions exit and I’ve had them stay inside the animal — both cases on one bull moose. The first went through both lungs leaving a small exit wound but splattered blood and lung tissue across the bushes on the far side. The next was a quartering-away shot that stopped under the hide next to the offside shoulder. The bull went down to stay — but it got back up when my son approached it. I shot it the third time in the rump and it went down to stay. Those last two 250gr Partitions were retrieved — the second shot bullet made a lump under the hide which my son, Phil, immediately detected and retrieved. The last by the butcher in the forward chest compartment of the moose. They each lost the front core and retained 71% of un-fired weight. Did they fail or succeed? You be the judge.

Personally, I think my Marlin lever-action .45-70 would have put an end to matters much sooner with less shooting! No, not proof, just a sense! It was for backup, loaded with 405gr Remingtons that would leave the muzzle at a tad over 2100 fps.

The three shots made on the moose were from my .340 Weatherby. The bullets were 250gr Partitions at 3000 fps. Range was 165 yards. Impact energy was about the same as a factory load from a .338 Win Mag at the muzzle — 3927 ft-lbs each! That moose absorbed a total of 7855 foot lbs of KE from the two that stayed inside the beast, plus whatever was transmitted from the one that made a pass-through, plus two from my son’s .338 Win Mag at near muzzle velocity from 250gr Hornady’s to finish the moose on the ground — one through the neck and the other between the eyes!

If anyone is inclined to deny the effect of KE in killing power — there is your argument!

That’s one solid reason why I mentioned above that there’s more to it than a good expanding bullet in the right place!

So, let’s consider this “more to it than…”:
PLEASE NOTE what is clearly said in the statement above: “more to it than a good expanding bullet in the right place”.

If that is true, which I’m obviously convinced is a valid statement of fact, then there are at least TWO conclusions drawn from it:
a) Bullet placement is NOT the main thing as many seem to claim, and
b) There IS “more to it”.

The three shots I made on that 1100 lb bull were all made from offhand and hit exactly where aimed. This was NOT a “trophy” hunt, which I think is a bad word anyway (I happen to agree with Shane Mahoney on that theme — he writes for SPORT’S AFIELD, but the article was in MOUNTAIN HUNTER, a Canadian publication, titled: The Power of a Word”. The word is “trophy” of which he feels it contributes to a bad impression of our sport within the general public.). I’m just a hunter! The primary issues for me in hunting is first my own safety and that of any others who may be partners. The second is the clean and immediate termination of the beast I’m hunting. That is a safety issue AND to spare the animal from needless suffering. The main goal IS NOT to collect horns! I will collect meat. So, I didn’t aim to hit the moose in the shoulders, but just behind them. In total the moose made two steps after the first shot, went down on the second and would have been finished had not my son spooked it and had we left it for twenty minutes or so. Ergo, the bullets did their job as intended, but a bigger bore with good bullets would have finished matters sooner — of that I’m convinced.

Yes, you can shoot a moose in the “hump” and dump it on the spot — no doubt. That’s a spinal shot, but from 165 yards offhand!?

I’ve witnessed on video a number of Cape buffalo being “knocked down” on the first shot from a spinal hit, but always there was need for finishing shots. So bullet placement is part of it, and with a “good bullet”, but not the whole thing!

2) The end of the matter is that one of two things must happen, and perhaps even both: a) Oxygen to the brain must be shut off, or b) Messages to and/or from the brain interrupted.

Oxygenated blood to the brain comes from the lungs via arteries. This blood supply is cut off immediately or quickly with the destruction of both lungs and/or the heart, or major arteries above the heart. In larger game this happens from a larger permanent wound cavity in any, or all, of those vital areas, and usually caused by a large caliber bullet of proper construction that has enough force and energy to not only reach vitals but completely and immediately finish their activities. Of course, a brain shot is the quickest means of permanently shutting down any messages, such as, “Destroy that humanoid!”

On elephants a solid is used from large calibers with enough force to smash through the “honeycomb” bone structure that protects the brain from a frontal shot. A side-brain shot might be preferred for lesser calibers as there is less protection for the brain. That’s mostly moot these days as ele hunting is fast becoming a relic of the past.

So, what about “best” expanding bullets for any soft-skinned game from 300lbs to 1500 lbs? If an expanding bullet expands too fast and too much it will release its energy too quickly and may not penetrate enough to reach vitals. If it expands too slowly or has a relatively small “mushroom”, it may exit without fast enough termination that allows the animal to possibly run too far into a thick bush, a ravine, a swamp, or onto a property that we don’t have permission to enter. Worst case, it may be lost! That’s why I prefer to start with a large bore. A larger bore using a good expanding bullet will always create a larger permanent wound cavity, other things being equal such as energy, bullet profile and construction.

Just about everyone who hunts big game within those boundaries (more or less) has his favorites. Hornady lists certain of their bullets for medium game AND large game. Others of similar design, but heavier, are listed for large game plus dangerous game, such as their DGX and DGS series in calibers from .375 to .510. 9.3mm comes in a 300gr DGS, plus a 286gr SP-RP that also is suggested for DG. And so on.

Seemingly, there’s no end to offerings from the major bullet companies that cover all basic needs in the medium to large, and even dangerous game projectiles. Though Nosler has been one of the slowest to venture into the rare realm of solids and softs for the larger calibers most often associated with trips for large DG.

Some hunters swear by Barnes’ offerings, others by Swift, and still more by Nosler, CEB or North Fork. And I’ve left out a few because the list is seemingly endless and growing.

But you get the message, I’m sure. There are truly no bad ones; though even the best will at times not get the job done as expected. The bullet’s fault? Maybe, but more likely it is due to some failure on the part of the hunter.

SOLIDS are intended for sure penetration on big, tough game like elephant, a follow-up on buffalo, hippo, the rear-end shot on a departing large-dangerous game, etc.

A “big hammer” breaks big bones better than a small one. And broken bones become secondary missiles of destruction in addition to bullets. I’ll soon be testing some 450gr Barnes Triple-Shock-X in my Ruger Tropical in .458 Win Mag. Currently some older 450gr-X are loaded and ready to go as soon as the weather cooperates. If that goes well, the 450 TSX’s will be given a try with the same load of 83 grains H335 at 3.695″ COL. The 450-X has a COL of 3.705″. I will be expecting over 2400 fps. If the first shot or two doesn’t reveal excess PSI, I’ll continue shooting.

(This is a loaded 450-X — expected MV will be 2400+ fps)

Till the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Rifle Ballistics — A Closer Look – P3

<These bullets have distinct profiles, and the construction of each differs to varying degrees from the others. There are reasons for that.

For the purpose of this context, they are all .458″ so that we can visualize what modifications in terminal results may occur when we know their impact velocity, weight and construction.

This blog will be an attempt to understand the reasons for those differences as we focus on:

Terminal Ballistics.
A friend by the name of Dan Schindler (Paragon Sporting Inc.) went to Alaska in 2014 to shoot a black bear. He took his M70 Winchester in .458 Win Mag. It had a custom synthetic stock and a 22″ barrel. He obsessed for some time over what bullet to handload for this pursuit. In the end, he made a wise choice even though I recommended a heavier bullet. Based on first impressions, I didn’t think a CEB with a poly tip and 265 grains was the way to go when there were better — in my view. Now, it’s important to understand something about Danny: He’s a pro in every sense of the word! He’s a trainer of trainers in the shotgun sports, and a trainer of rifle shooters as well. He knows what he can do with a shotgun AND a rifle!

He hunted on Prince of Wales from a boat. (If I ever hunted Alaska, that would be my first choice – from a boat, since I was practically raised in one on the East Coast of Canada in a fishing community.) Of course, he didn’t shoot from a boat, but they (boat captain, outfitter-guide and Dan) travelled up inlets and bays looking for black bears. Also a 4×4 was used on land when appropriate. Nearing the end of the hunt, a good black bear was sighted as they rounded a bend on the 4 x 4. A stalk was made and from about 90 yards Dan pulled the trigger.

Dan sent me a report sometime after returning home. I ran a ballistic simulation profile of expected results. It turns out that he was very right in his expectations and I was very wrong! The 265gr Raptor was more than plenty for the 400 lb black bear that was terminated immediately on bullet impact. In fact, he felt that the bear was dead before it hit the ground. One and done! It was a 6′-10″ bear at 400 lbs. The bullet had taken out lungs and heart.

The following is a profile of the ballistics from Dan’s .458 Win Mag load:

Rifle: a customized M70 Winchester
Cartridge: .458 Winchester Magnum
Bullet: 265gr CEB Raptor with poly tip.
SD = .181
BC = .204
MV = 2650 fps/4132 ft-lbs/ 123 TE
90 = 2297 fps/3104 ft-lbs/ 93 TE – enough for a 1100+ lb bear at that range!

My results are based on the formula given several times in the past, including in the last blog:
Terminal Effect = KEI x SD x CSA

Hence: Dan’s ballistic results @ 3104 x .181 x .165 = 92.7 (x 12.5 for approximate size bear with correct shot placement from a good-appropriate bullet.) This is a guideline ONLY that I’ve used for the past few decades.

Nonetheless, it accords with a guideline that I read in a hunting magazine a number of years ago. The author’s name or even that of the magazine doesn’t come to mind, but the writer had made a trip to Alaska for grizzly, and succeeded. (Likely, his firearm was in .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H.) Anyway, I do recall his recommendation, which he felt was a minimum for that species and location: 3000 ft-lbs at impact using a good premium bullet.

Of course, “we ALL know” there’s more to it than that, but his piece likely mentioned bullet placement as well.

My “formula” is the result of extensive reviews of professional ballistic engineers’ work, plus reported results of some pros in the field, and my own field work.

It is similar to John Wootters’ formula, but was published in my manual on the .45-70 a year or so before his appeared in a Petersen publication. Subsequently, I had correspondence with him about it. The main distinction being that he used nominal caliber whereas I use cross-sectional area of bullet.

Yes, I have read the arguments against using ANY formula, plus the argument that SD of a soft-point bullet changes after impact. However, professional ballisticians, who test bullets daily, still cite and recommend SD as a significant entity at impact. But also, in comparison of one soft-nose bullet with another of the same make, it seems to me that SD still has meaning in end results if both are deformed in a similar manner or degree; whether that be that they retain 70% of un-fired weight, as in a Partition, or 100% as in a TSX. It has been rightly pointed out to me by a math guy, that the end result of my formula biases the momentum that is doubled, rather than leaning on velocity that is squared in kinetic energy, though both are implied in the formula.

And I’ve read the very in-depth piece that has appeared from time to time on the forums that attempts to debunk in an academic manner any and all ideas about kinetic energy or momentum at impact being predictable of outcome.

Standing alone, I agree. But also caliber, bullet weight, construction, profile and impact velocity cannot be denied as the principle components in terminal effect. And, of course, bullet placement. But bullet placement apart from the ballistics involved is meaningless! So bullet placement, while it can’t be taken for granted, is ALWAYS a variable that CANNOT be assumed under ALL conditions! Therefore it has no place in the study of IMPACT ballistics. Yes, it IS an important factor in TERMINAL EFFECT, but that is still an uncertain factor depending on the HUNTER and nothing else!

It is therefore ASSUMED in my formula that the hunter/shooter has placed the bullet correctly, whatever the conditions, and within a range where an appropriate bullet will do its work as predicted — based on impact velocity, caliber, weight (SD) and construction — that also takes account of its profile.

Now, as to the bullets that appear at the top: First row, L to R: 465gr hardcast; 400gr Barnes Buster; 330gr Barnes Banded (now out of production); 350gr TSX and 300gr TSX.

Bottom row, L to R: 400gr Hawk FP; 350gr Hornady FP; 405gr Remington;350gr Speer Hotcor; and 450gr Swift A-Frame.

What could we do with those? What would I do?

Based on some tests and experience with some on game, this is what I’d recommend:

465 hardcast – worked very well on a 6′ bear from a frontal shot. MV was 1900 fps and range was 70 yards. It was a “bang-flop” and the bullet was never found. The bear didn’t hear the sound of the rifle.

400 Buster – tests show it will penetrate, like forever.

330 Barnes Banded – penetration was complete in media, but it lost its stability and went sideways through the last plank.

350 TSX – a go-to bullet for the .458 Win. Shot a medium bear with it and wouldn’t hesitate to use it on moose or elk. Full penetration in test media and retained 100% of weight. A 500gr Speer GS penetrated 6.5″ and retained 310grs of the initial 500 = 62%. In other words the 350 TSX not only “out-penetrated” the 500 Speer, but out-weighed it as well by 40 grs at 350 to 310. The 350 went on both a moose and bear hunt.

300 TSX – used in tests with phenomenal results. Retained 100%. Also used in a bear hunt without a chance on the bear I wanted.

400 Hawk – only used for handload tests, so far. Good results, though I’d ony consider it for deer or possibly bear at no more than 1800 fps. It’s a soft bullet.

350 Hornady FP – loaded now for my Ruger Tropical in .458 at 2510 fps. Very accurate. It may be used for a bear hunt in May or September. In the same test done in November 2017, it only penetrated 4.5″ and lost its core. MV was 2250 fps and impact was at 5 yards into very tough test material — just like the others.

405 Remington – used on bear with great success from my Marlin Classic .45-70 at 2110 fps MV and impact MV about 1835 at 97 yards. Full penetration on the bear from neck-shoulder to offside flank. DRT.

350 Speer – a great .458-cal bullet for medium to heavy game. Used on one bear from my first .458 WM, a M77 Ruger, at 2345 fps MV. Range was 70 yards (est.) and penetration was complete from a going-away shot to liver and exit taking out eight inches of spine and back of head. Damage was awesome.

450 A-Frame – used only in developing loads for the CZ550, so far.

A MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

Flat- Point Jacketed Bullet:

Of the ten (up top), the five on the bottom row have lead cores with a copper, or copper alloy jacket. All have a flat point of variable diameters.

The 400 Hawk is a custom bullet ordered for me by a dealer. It’s 400 grains with a 1/35″ pure copper jacket and soft lead core. It was specifically made for a .45-70 at an MV of between 1600 and 1900 fps. The weight is ideal for white-tailed deer of any size up to about 150 yards if any expansion is wanted. However, with its broad flat tip it would still work well enough to 200 yards without expansion, where velocity would be about 1320 fps. It has a poor BC of only .214 but a relatively high SD of .272. If it were a tougher bullet, I wouldn’t hesitate to use it on moose to 250 yards. But I would also want a better BC for improved ballistics down range, and that would mean a somewhat smaller meplat (tip). That would also give better penetration.

A 405gr/.458-cal Remington. can make at least 2000 fps from a 22″ Marlin. It has a smaller meplat, a double radius bullet, and a core that’s tougher than the Hawk. The jacket is copper-alloy (tougher but thinner). Good reports have come back from use on bear and moose/elk. I used it on one bear and it worked superbly at about 100 yards — a “bang-flop” with full penetration, leaving the muzzle of my 22″ Marlin at just over 2100 fps.

But still, an ideal bullet for the Marlin might be the 400gr Swift or Woodleigh that I’ve never tried.

Why is that so? For larger game like moose or elk, or even large bears, we want penetration to or through the vitals. A tougher jacket would give better insurance as would a harder core. A .458″ bullet doesn’t need much expansion to get the job done. But a flat point tends to do more damage (depending on its width) and tracks in a straight line. 400 grains will give better penetration than a 300 or 350 with equal shape and construction due to its better momentum caused by a greater weight and SD, assuming they all are loaded to the same PSI.

The 350 Speer in .458″
This bullet was made for the .458 Win Mag and the velocities it can generate. I used it on a bear at 2345 fps (reduced load) at 70 yards and it was devastation for the bear. It has a smaller diameter point than the Hawk, Hornady or Remington, a heavier jacket with a harder core. Also, due to its smaller point, it has a better BC of .232 than the 400 Hawk and 350 Hornady, but less than the 405 Remington with a good BC of .281.

I’d not hesitate to use that bullet on moose or elk at reasonable ranges. But for big bears (black or brown), I’d choose the 350 TSX, 400 GS or even the 500 TSX — more on that upcoming.

The 450gr Swift A-Frame has a very good reputation on African and Alaskan large game, and even some of the dangerous sort. However, in my view, it’s BC could be improved at only .325. The 500 TSX is .412, and is what I’d choose for my Ruger #1 Tropical if ever a hunt in Africa or Alaska was on the agenda.

Look at these potential results:

Rifle: .458 Win Mag or any other .458-cal that could produce equal ballistics
Bullet: 500gr TSX
BC = .412
SD = .341
MV = 2300 fps (from a 24″ barrel)

Ambient average hunting conditions for my area in spring or fall:
Temp. @ 60* F/ 17* C.
Elevation @ 1150 ft
RH @ 56%
Zero @ 200 yards

MV = 2300 fps/5872 ft-lbs/330 TE/ -1.60″
50 = 2205 fps/5395 ft-lbs/303 TE/ +1.66″
100= 2112 fps/4951 ft-lbs/278 TE/ +3.12″
150= 2021 fps/4535 ft-lbs/255 TE/ +2.62″
200= 1933 fps/4148 ft-lbs/233 TE/ +0.00″
250= 1847 fps/3789 ft-lbs/213 TE/ -4.95″
300= 1764 fps/3455 ft-lbs/194 TE/ -12.4″
350= 1684 fps/3148 ft-lbs/177 TE/ -22.7″
400= 1607 fps/2867 ft-lbs/161 TE/ -36.1″ (An excellent mature bull moose load to 400 yards from any angle.)

The objective of these analysis of certain .458-cal bullets is to provide a model for evaluation of ANY bullet for medium to large game and/or dangerous game.

If you’ve carefully observed the comments made regarding various types, configurations and weights of .458″ projectiles, there are obviously various features that contribute to terminal effect.

TOUGHNESS: all else equal, a tougher bullet will hang together better against bone than a softer bullet.

SHAPE (or profile): A flat-point has to push/throw more material/molecules out of the way faster than a sharp-pointed bullet. That is true whether we are speaking of harder bullets or softer ones. Therefore a flat-point (expanding or solid) has to do more work than a more pointed bullet (expanding or non-expanding) within the same penetration distance. In doing more work it will do more damage if penetration is the same or complete. We know that from experience and/or theory.

If the flat point has to do more work, or actually does more work in the same distance and time frame, then it also releases more of its inherent kinetic energy within that distance and time frame.

I’ve experience of all that to confirm the logic and theory.

I’m not necessarily one who wants a bullet to spend all its energy inside the animal, but I do know that full penetration through the vitals is no guarantee of a so-called “bang-flop”. Nor, on the other hand, is the bullet a “failure” if it “dumps” all its energy inside the animal and doesn’t exit, as long as the vitals are involved.

CONSTRUCTION:A great deal of thought and research has gone into this subject since the first round ball was invented. And they were not necessarily lead.

Since guns and gun powder were invented for military purposes, advances in both have brought us to the modern era. Yet, above all else, bullets have earned more study and attention than the apparatus that fires them. And for good reason as it’s the bullet that kills!

Space and time will not permit a rehearsal of all that, but there’s no doubt that, on the whole, today’s projectiles are the best ever — with the qualification that some are mere copies of others that grandfathered them — the Partition for one example.

Today’s idea of a premium bullet is a heavier, or stronger, jacket with a bonded lead core, OR just a monolithic all copper or copper-alloy bullet regardless of other features such as profile, caliber and weight.

Yet Hornady makes a series of dangerous game bullets for several larger calibers with flat tips, bonded hard-lead cores in a thick steel jacket coated with a thin layer of copper for protection of the rifle’s bore! It doesn’t get much better than that for sophistication! And moreover, all they do to make one into a DGX (Dangerous Game Expanding) and the other into a DGS (Dangerous Game Solid) is reverse the bullet — the very thick steel base of the DGX becomes the solid point of the DGS!!

Then, of course, it had to happen — the “demand” for long-range shooting has all bullet makers scrambling to make the longest-sleekest-highest BC bullet possible for our hum-drum or “tricked-out” rifles. Hornady has even come out with a rifle AND ammo to meet that “demand” (really, marketing strategy!). And your guess is as good as mine as to who will be next… NEXT!! Yup, we’re already there! I just can’t wait to get my hands on one of those to shoot a bear at 50 meters!

CALIBER: does make a difference, even if we’re being told that it doesn’t matter anymore because “smaller” can do better than what “bigger” used to do anyway because of better bullets, rifles and fancier cartridges. REALLY???

Personally, I don’t buy it even though there’s a smidgen of truth therein.

Hornady’s “new” rifle and caliber is another .300 magnum with a very long throat, and action to match, to shoot their very long and aerodynamic 212gr at nearly 3000 fps so that hunters can fill their elk tags at a mile away!

If I recall correctly, I think that has already been tried by some fanciers of the .50 BMG! How many elk are you aware of that have been successfully harvested (found and brought home) at such an unforgiving range? But Hornady is making it easier from a rifle that only “kicks” like a .300 magnum!

I’ve written much previously about my thoughts on caliber, so will not bore somebody to tears by rehashing the fact that CALIBER COUNTS in there somewhere when we consider TERMINAL RESULTS!

< A 232gr Oryx vs a 286gr Partition. The Oryx has an SD of .246 and the Partition an SD of .307. Both are 9.3mm bullets. I’d count on the Partition for penetration over the Oryx — and have.)

WEIGHT:The greater the weight of a bullet in relation to caliber, the greater its SD (sectional density). All things equal, BC is improved, momentum is greater as well as penetration. Example: a 200gr Nosler Partition will penetrate better from a 30-06 than a 180gr due to the improvements mentioned. The 200 has a better SD and BC as well as more momentum, even IF KE is the same. The SD of the 200 is .301 vs .271 of the 180, and the BC is .481 vs .474. That’s assuming they each were started with equal PSI. Nosler’s manual #6 gives the 180gr 2872 fps, and the 200gr 2688 fps which gives the 200 a 5% advantage in momentum at the start that will increase down range due to a better BC. A slight edge goes to the 180 in KE at the start, but the 200 will soon catch up and pass it in KE downrange. The difference isn’t much but any advantage of one over the other goes to the 200gr. But the often forgotten bullet weight in .30-06 is the 220gr. If I were hunting the “big” bears of Alaska with a .30-06, this is the one I’d choose because of more weight granting an increase in momentum and a significant increase in SD at .331, meaning better penetration on an angling shot if needed, or perhaps a close-in shot for stopping a bear’s charge. A .30-06 wouldn’t be my first choice, but it will work at closer ranges when a Nosler 200 or 220 is employed with a steady hand. Test it with my formula and you’ll see that Phil Shoemaker is sane in what he has stated about the .30-06 in his experience. It’s unwise to debate with him other than the fact that he is an expert rifleman as well as an expert with a handgun. But also keep in mind that you and I are not his equals in these matters. He still favors his “Ole Ugly” in .458 Win Mag when he has to go into the “pucker brush” for a confrontation with a wounded brownie or grizzly. Personally, I’d start with a .458 Win.

IMPACT VELOCITY:also counts! How much has been debated “forever”. I’ve a target single-shot pellet pistol in .17-cal. It shoots .17-cal pellets at just over 400 fps. I tried to shoot a rabbit with it that was creating havoc in our veggie garden… The rabbit was unharmed with body shots that appeared to only have “bounced off” its fur and hide.

Our son, Phil, has a heavy-barrelled .17 Hornet that shoots 20gr – 25gr varmint bullets at between 3200 fps (25gr) and 3700 fps (20gr).

Would debating the issue of whether to take an air pistol that shoots .177 cal pellets at 400 fps or a .17 cal Hornet that shoots 25gr at 3200 fps for rabbits make any sense?

So, velocity counts in a hunting context.

In a small bore, such as a .223 Remingtom, a velocity difference of 200 fps from a 53gr might make a difference on a woodchuck at 300 yards. But in shooting at a woodchuck at 400 yards, a .22-250 would be a better choice because of higher velocity at impact as well as a flatter trajectory in shooting 50 to 55gr suited to the task. At 100 yards, a .22LR high velocity, like the 40gr CCI Velocitor will terminate a chuck just as dead and quickly as a .22-250… with a HEAD shot!

Those are mere examples to make a point: when we move on to large calibers, a difference of 200 fps amounts to a significant difference from a 500gr. At 2000 fps it’s making 4440 ft-lbs at the muzzle, while at 2200 fps it’s 5373 ft-lbs. That’s a difference of 933 ft-lbs or more than twice the kinetic energy of a 45 Auto 1911 at the muzzle!

In comparing a .308 Winchester to a .300 Win Mag, when handloaded with identical 180gr projectiles, the distinction in muzzle energy is about 1000 ft-lbs at the muzzle and still 700 ft-lbs difference at 300 yards in favor of the .300 Win. Would velocity make a difference in that scenario if the only shot on a 1200 lb moose on the last day would be a quartering-away-shot? Which would you rather have in your hands, the .308 or the .300?

<(Moose shot in N. Ontario where possible ranges varied from a few feet to over 600 yards)
Sure, if we knew before the fact that all shooting would be at woods ranges, then a .308 Winchester would be perfect! Even a .30-30 with a good bullet in the right place. But a .30-30 on a running moose at 80 yards isn’t going to be any picnic! “C’mon back tomorrow!” “But today is the LAST day of the hunt!”

VELOCITY COUNTS!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Rifle Ballistics — A Closer Look – P2

So far, a synopsis of INTERNAL BALLISTICS has been presented in P1. That has to do with what goes on inside our rifles when the trigger is squeezed.

P2 will give an overview of EXTERNAL BALLISTICS:  The flight of the bullet from muzzle to impact. That is its muzzle velocity and impact velocity on target, or its trajectory and retained energy during its flight.

Multiple factors come into play  in that sequence:

1> Muzzle velocity.

2>Caliber.

3>Bullet weight.

4>Sectional density.

5>Ballistic coefficient.

6>Bullet stability.

It is generally recognised that a “pointy” bullet will resist atmospheric drag better than a round-nose or flat-tip bullet. That is, they will retain their initial velocity (hence energy) better making the flight path “flatter” and impacting with greater velocity (energy and force) on target (game or other target such as animal silhouettes). As a concept, that’s not disputable. What does raise multiple questions, however, is what bullet in a particular caliber is best overall for the task at hand.

This part of our discussions on rifle ballistics will mostly focus on that dilemma. In the end, three considerations must be addressed: The cartridge, the bullet and muzzle velocity.

THE CARTRIDGE: 

This designates rifle caliber. As one example, there are many .30-caliber cartridges — too many to name here, but we are all familiar with the ubiquitous .308 Winchester – that’s a popular .30-caliber cartridge that shoots bullets of .308″ diameter, same as the .30-06 Springfield and .30-30 Winchester. The rifles all have .308″ bores, but the size of the cases vary in capacity for gun powder. We already know that, but I’m making a simple point: We don’t expect a .30-30 burning upwards of 38 grains of medium-burn rate powder to be equal in  ballistics to a .308 Winchester that may burn 52 grains of the same burn-rate powder behind the same weight bullet. And that despite the fact that the .308 Win can shoot more aerodynamic bullets than the .30-30 that shoots flat-nose or round-nose due to a tubular magazine. (Yeah, I know you can get a .30-30 in a single shot or you might still have one in a bolt-action hidden away in a closet that allows sharp-pointed bullets.)

But the premise being: there are .30-calibers and then there are other .30-calibers! So if our dream rifle is a .30-caliber there are multiple choices that WILL determine ultimate ballistics at the muzzle and on game.

While there may NOT be as many choices in some other cartridges as in .30-caliber, yet the same logic prevails: What do I want my rifle to be capable of doing for me? It could be as a general-purpose hunting rifle, or a very special heavy-barrel varmint-target rifle, or a test platform, or Big Bore for large and dangerous game, or just a big-game rifle suitable for any game in North America (and other places) under most conditions.

While I’ve owned three .30-06s, yet I’ve decided that for myself it’s something like driving a very reliable Toyota Corolla — reliable but boring!!  There are more exciting cars that do the same things and more — better! That’s how I see the .30-06.  The Corolla was great when economics and reliability was the favorite tune… but even the current CEO of Toyota, the grandson of the founder, Mr. Toyoda, said so recently! Changes are coming, no more boring Corollas — and it’s happening!

All that to state a fact: After we decide what rifle for the next big-game hunt, we are stuck with its ballistics. If I’m going to be “stuck” with the ballistic capabilities of my rifle for a particular hunt, I don’t want “just enough” to merely get me there (like a Corolla) but with a “driver” that generates some enthusiasm like a sport sedan. No, I can’t afford a sport sedan like Audi or Lexus, but I can manage a compact that acts like one! And most of us can afford at least one rifle with ballistics that can generate more than enough in accuracy and terminal effect, but also with passion!

(That’s who I am… but NOTHING is as important and ultimately fulfilling as knowing that my Father is THE ONE who made the universe and everything in it!)

I never had the means for a car that made 0 to 60 mph in 4 – 5 seconds, but I did in a motorcycle. Likewise, I want rifles that can “drive” like a sport sedan or a motorcycle –nothing “boring”. No, I agree, it isn’t wise or necessary to push a car or bike at over 100 mph to get “there” — wherever “there” might be, but it’s satisfying to know its available when a couple of middle-aged men pull up beside you at a stop light in a Corvette, and the driver speaks: “Want to give ‘er a try?”, making reference to my 750 Honda Custom. When it went green, I twisted the throttle and he pressed the gas to the next red light. We arrived together. His Corvette about 4.5 sec to 60 mph. My bike about the same. His Corvette? About $75,000. My 750 Honda? About $1600. (Yeah, I know, that was forty years ago!)

The point? You or I don’t need a custom rifle with all the bells and whistles to have “exciting” ballistics. A plain Jane Ruger No.1 comes in a variety of cartridge sizes with holes in the barrel to match. When I look down the shinny .458″ bore of mine it awakens passion, desire and motivation to go hunt something big and mean! Same for a .300 magnum. Today, at our local gun “emporium” there sits (along with some more costly “toys”) in a locked glass cabinet a rather inexpensive bolt-action repeater with a synthetic camo stalk chambered in .300 Weatherby Magnum. I’ve considered it a few times as I’ve previously owned one by the same maker. It bears the Weatherby Vanguard name and a sticker with $675 printed on it. Twenty years ago mine had a beautiful Claro walnut stock just like Weatherby’s most expensive, and it was a great rifle but more costly than this one with the synthetic stock. A .300 Weatherby, in my view, is anything but a boring rifle. For the handloader, it’s capable of firing a 180gr at 3200 fps from a 24″ barrel! Mine had a 24″. What do I think of the .300 RUM? Too much of a good thing, in my view. Especially if one wants to shoot more than 600 rounds through it without the barrel being fried!

What do I think of today’s cars? Better than ever! The best selling car in Canada is the Honda Civic — it looks fast sitting still! And it comes with a 4 banger that makes over 300 horses if you want that. Of course, it has a twin turbo. And the Corolla is looking much better, and you can even get that with more than a hundred horses. My four-banger drives like a sport CUV. It makes the same horsepower as the inline Buick 8 cylinder did “back in the day”.

As to rifles. they too are better than ever in my view and experience. And cheaper! An accurate .30-06 can be had for under $400, and it can be “cranked up” in horsepower to about 3300 ft-lbs at the muzzle by knowing “how to”. With today’s powders and bullets it comes very close to original ballistics of the hoary .300 H&H — the beloved of the nostalgic bunch. Hey, my rifles are for “ancient” cartridges — but they can hold their own if a younger man is seated at a bench beside me shooting a Ruger No.1 in .416 Rigby, loaded with 400gr Hornady SP bullets loaded for bear! Mind you, these were not max loads but were leaving his barrel at around 2230 fps. He didn’t seem to even like that much recoil! His had a 24″ and weighed in with scope at around 10 and 1/4 lbs.

When I arrived on the scene, he had just about finished his practice and testing session using a Chrony. Rather proudly, he invited me to view the results on the chronograph. Frankly, I don’t recall the exact number, but it was somewhere north of 2200.

He then enquired about my rifle. I had already placed mine in a setup for shooting 500gr Hornady SP Interlocs. The rifle was also a Ruger No.1, but in .45-70 with a long throat, which I called a “.45-70 LT”. I didn’t have my Chrony set up but offered my Ruger #1 to him to check MV over his Chrony. Yup, he did fire it and 2187 fps was recorded over his chronograph! He flinched and exclaimed ” WOW!! Corrected to MV I already knew what the results would be: 2200 fps/5373 ft-lbs! Recoil = 73 ft-lbs of KE! No extra weight added, just rifle and scope at 8.4 lbs. His by comparison: 400gr at 2230 fps/4416 ft-lbs (plenty for bear) from a 10.25 lb rifle = 46.7 ft-lbs recoil. Both had ancient ancestry (mine the most “ancient”) but easily matched more contemporary big-bore ballistics.

Many years ago, I was at the range doing some Chrony work for my .338 Win Mag in the Sako FS. A fellow shooter asked if I’d check some loads over the Chrony for his .300 Weatherby. I forget the exact barrel length, but likely 26″. Weatherby advertises their factory product of a 180gr at 3250 fps from a 26″. His loads recorded 3200 fps instrumental at the Chrony without correction. I think at the muzzle they would have been close enough to Weatherby’s claims. That’s 4221 ft-lbs at the muzzle and 2148 ft-lbs at 500 yards if it’s a Partition. The 200gr AccuBond, with a BC of .588, is only -3″ at 300 and 2470 ft-lbs at 500! THAT stirs my adrenaline! Comparing a .30-06 to that is like comparing an ’80’s Corolla to my ’56 Ford Fairlaine with a V8! Or… my close friend’s BIG ’59 Chevy with its in-line 6 to the V8 Ford of ’56. His was new and mine had a few years plus too many miles, but I left him in the dust on a twisty New Brunswick road back in 1959.

The cartridge determines ultimate ballistic capabilities.

Therefore it determines MUZZLE VELOCITY. And MV is in charge of downrange ballistics.

But some other factors are part of the act as well:

BULLETS > their weight and shape

Bullet weight in grains for a certain caliber determines its sectional density (SD) and has an important bearing on its ballistic coefficient (BC). SD also plays an important role in penetration at impact. BC is nose profile of the bullet and determines in large part how efficient the bullet is in maintaining its velocity to impact.

Bullet manufacturers give ratings in their manuals for both SD and BC. When we know MV and BC we can plug those into a ballistic software program (Hornady has one on the Internet — and there are others) for final velocity and kinetic energy at impact.

Once we know MV and downrange impact, we may use any number of guides to inform us of presumed results — whether just KE or KO (Taylor).

Mine will follow in P3.

BULLET Stability

is determined by the rate-of-twist of the rifling vs bullet weight and length.  Its stability affects BC and how it performs at impact.  An unstable bullet is usually caused by a too slow rate of twist or a worn barrel or a bullet that’s too long for the twist-rate.

If we see an oblong or eccentric shape bullet hole in the target we will need to check out the reason. A bullet that “keyholes” is one that hits the target sideways — that’s bad, very bad! The barrel’s rifling may be worn out or the bullet itself may be undersize.

The BULLET:

Its caliber and weight determines its SD, which along with its MV, shape and construction will determine effect at target impact.

Let’s have a closer look at those in turn — Caliber now, and construction and shape in P3.

Caliber: that’s bullet diameter. How important is that? Well, for one thing it will play a major role on bullet weight which together determine SD that has a major role in terminal results — so, very important!

To illustrate by way of comparison, let’s think of two distinct and perhaps equally popular rifle cartridges based on the .30-06: The.25-06 Remington and the .35 Whelen. The .25-06 has bullet diameters of .257″ while the .35 Whelen has bullet diameters of .358″ — a sub-medium vs a medium bore.

Nosler’s component bullets for the .25-06 go from 85gr to 120gr, making it a somewhat versatile rifle for varmints, small predators and deer (whitetails, mule deer, etc.). Some call it a duel-purpose rifle.

Nosler’s manual #6 presents three projectiles in .358″ — a 180, 225 and a 250. Hornady markets five: a 180 SP, a 200 in RN and SP, as well as a RN and SP in 250gr. Woodleigh offers a 310gr. And there are other companies that make .358″ bullets as well. We could even make our own by casting them.

Common sense should tell anyone with a smidgen of ballistic knowledge that the two cartridges are intended for different species of game — the .25-caliber for small and medium game while the .35-caliber was mainly created for big game like elk, moose and bears, both blacks and brown.

But aside from the history involved in their creation, let’s have a closer look at their ballistics by choosing the best Nosler Partition for each. That would be a 120gr in .25-cal and a 250gr in .35-cal. Have we noticed that the main bullet for larger than varmints in .25-cal is less than 1/2 the weight of the common large game bullet for the .35? But, more than that, there’s a significant distinction in SD, BC and cross-section area! Yeah, the 250 is slower but will always carry much more energy and momentum to target!

The point of that paragraph is to demonstrate, once again, that the larger caliber based on the same cartridge will ALWAYS be superior than the smaller one in the taking of larger game, assuming bullets have the same structure and shape.

Here are the numbers for the two cartridges in our example:

Cartridge: .25-06 (based on the .30-06)
Barrel length = 24″
Bullet make and weight: 120gr Nosler Partition
SD = .260
BC = .391
MV = 3175 fps/2685 ft-lbs/36 TE/ -1.60″
100= 2934 fps/2293 ft-lbs/31 TE/ +2.17″
200= 2706 fps/1951 ft-lbs/26 TE/ +1.89″
300= 2489 fps/1651 ft-lbs/22 TE/ -3.15″
400= 2283 fps/1388 ft-lbs/19 TE/ -13.8″

Cartridge: .35 Whelen (based on the .30-06)
Barrel length = 22″
Bullet make and weight: 250gr Nosler Partition
SD = .279
BC = .446
MV = 2600 fps/3752 ft-lbs/106 TE/ -1.60″
100= 2414 fps/3233 ft-lbs/ 91 TE/ +3.67″
200= 2235 fps/2772 ft-lbs/ 78 TE/ +2.94″
300= 2064 fps/2364 ft-lbs/ 67 TE/ -4.77″
400= 1901 fps/2005 ft-lbs/ 56 TE/ -20.7″

Obviously, by simply making the .30-06 cartridge/case to have a larger caliber, ballistic results are INCREASED both at the muzzle and on target downrange, all else being equal.

On the other hand, by necking the .30-06 case to a smaller caliber (including the .270 Win) ballistic results are DECREASED at the muzzle and on target downrange, all else being equal including PSI.

So larger calibers have greater ballistic potential than smaller calibers, all else equal, including equal PSI, barrel length, case capacity and OPTIMUM bullet weights (shape and construction) for the cartridge. That’s why a .338 Winchester Magnum can NEVER equal it’s parent case, the .458 Winchester Magnum under the same qualifiers mentioned above.

That’s not seriously debatable. Yeah, some will argue based on a “better” bullet selection for their “lesser” caliber at higher pressure… but you already know what I think of that kind of obfuscation (smoke screen)!

Til the next on P3

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Rifle Ballistics — A Closer Look – P1

There are several aspects  to consider as we think and talk rifle ballistics, and the most significant is terminal results. (You can left click on the photos for a better view.)

In general, rifle ballistics are considered by those who should know under the following three divisions:

1) Internal ballistics (within the chamber and barrel).

2) External ballistics.

3) Terminal ballistics.

INTERNAL BALLISTICS: Contained within all that — consciously or unconsciously — is rifle construction (including barrel), bore size, chamber dimension, barrel length and condition, bullet type and weight, type of powder and amount, primer, and above all else PSI.

This is something that most hunters take for granted and give little thought to. If their rifle for big game is a .30-06, then it’s likely considered adequate (or more so) for whatever they buy a tag. It has always worked for them and their friends, so why give more thought to that matter. But what happens inside their rifles when they pull the trigger will largely determine the outcome at bullet impact.

EXTERNAL BALLISTICS: This describes what happens to the bullet in its flight path to target — its muzzle velocity, stability, trajectory and retained energy.

TERMINAL BALLISTICS: is related to bullet weight, velocity, shape and construction at impact. Kinetic Energy is a factor as well as momentum.

So my aim is to present those three aspects of RIFLE BALLISTICS in a simple and comprehensive manner to refresh the memories of some and perhaps enlighten others. The plan is to deal with each separately in single presentations, then to bring them together in a final piece while drawing some suitable conclusions.  Ample examples and illustrations will attend each article along the way.

INTERNAL BALLISTICS

Our thoughts and emotions determine our actions. What goes on inside us determines in large measure what goes on outside us. So it is with rifles — what happens inside our rifles determines muzzle velocity and inherent accuracy.

The non-handloader who aims his rifle and pulls the trigger assumes that the factory product has been constructed properly and will live up to expectations — whether that be so or not. There is trust based on either personal experience or the witness of others — or just in the brand name. Perhaps in all three.

For the handloader who carefully constructs his own ammo, reliability and trust is based on knowledge and experience. If it’s a new rifle, it must be tested. Same thing for a new-different cartridge. He must also have basic knowledge of what goes on inside the chamber and barrel when the trigger is squeezed. Otherwise he doesn’t have a hope that matters will turn out as wanted or expected.

Therefore, above everything else, he/she must become a student of both internal and external ballistics. The initial source of that knowledge is provided in reloading manuals and guides. Secondly, from the knowledge and experience of trusted partners and friends. And finally from a developing personal experience that involves multiple trials, tests and even errors. It then becomes an awareness that growth in ballistic knowledge is never ending.

This is NOT intended as a first primer for potential handloaders — you’ll find that in the essential manuals and guides. But the concept of what goes on inside the chamber of our rifles when the trigger is squeezed or pulled must be completely clear BEFORE we ever assemble a rifle cartridge.

The brass case: If new, they need to be checked for any flaws. Don’t take for granted that they are ready to receive a primer, loaded with powder and bullet, then chambered. MANY factory products have flaws, including a particular run of cartridge brass. Just a few years ago, I purchased 100 new Remington cases for a .35 Whelen only to finally discover that they had wrong dimensions from head to shoulder. They wouldn’t fire in my new rifle! Used .35 Whelen cases when reloaded worked great, and there were no problems with factory ammo tested in the rifle. But those NEW cases refused to fire when loaded! The problem was the shoulder was too far back! I could have fire-formed all 100 by using a moderate load and seating bullets long enough to engage the rifling so the cartridge wouldn’t be driven forward by the firing pin — but that was a pain!

So checking new, un-fired brass cases for ANY flaws is an essential practice that should become a habit as a first step in the handloading process. Even new cases from Hornady in 9.3 x 62 had to have the flared mouth of the brass trimmed off to allow them to chamber freely. That was caused by the factory cutting off the bass to the proper length.

The Primer: Like most commercial offerings today, there are many options. None are bad but some might work best. The only way to find out for certain is by testing several that seem appropriate. The only major distinctions might be between standard LR or magnum LR. Then again, maybe not. I’ve been using Winchester Large Rifle Magnum primers (WLRM) for many years in just about all big game rifles. I haven’t found anything better, or even as good, when 60 plus grains of propellant might be used.

Powder: While it’s the bullet that kills, yet the powder is what makes the bullet fly. So propellant is like the “brains” that motivate the projectile — how fast and how far. It might be likened to a steam-engine that drove a locomotive in days of yore. It’s what creates the gas that under pressure propels the bullet down the barrel and out the muzzle. How much PSI is dependent on many factors: the type of powder and how much. The type and volume will depend on the cartridge case and bullet. And all that must accord with the specs of the rifle for which the cartridge is intended. If a .30-30 Winchester with a 20″ barrel, then the cartridge case will be limited as to the volume of space available for powder if a 150gr bullet of .30-caliber is seated — as one example. That will be around 35 – 40 grains of a medium burn-rate powder such as Winchester 748 to push the bullet at up to about 2300 fps from the muzzle when around 40,000 PSI is reached at peak pressure. In sharp contrast to that, a .300 Winchester Magnum might use upwards of 76 grains of a slow-burning powder such as Reloader 22 to drive a 180gr, .30-caliber to 3000 – 3100 fps from a 24″ barrel at around 64,000 peak PSI.

To make a point, those are a couple of examples only to impress this fact concerning gun powders: There are many that MIGHT work, but to be sure check good manuals for your rifle and cartridge. If there are questions, call their help line. The choice of powder, and how much of it, determines PSI. And how much PSI is safe in our rifles is critical knowledge. Peak pressure, and its duration, determines the velocity of the bullet at the muzzle, and it contributes to accuracy of the rifle load as well.

If we are experienced handloaders, we should be aware of all that. But what about the rifle itself? Is it safe and in good condition? I’ve had even new rifles that needed critical work done on them by a competent gunsmith before they could perform as intended… in both bolt and lever actions. If a used gun, it should be checked by yourself if you are experienced enough. If not, by a licensed and reputable gunsmith.

READING PRESSURE: Several self-proclaimed “experts” say that’s not possible or its a dangerous policy for anyone without a strain gauge or access to a lab. Others say we should never exceed the muzzle velocities of manuals for a particular load. They have a point, of course, but it’s a limited one due to several variables:

1 – Most don’t have access to labs or even strain gauges.
2 – Manuals are the result of procedures not realistic for the average handloader.
3 – The lots of powder used by labs are mostly bulk powders and most often not from the same lots used in our personal situations. Lots of powder produced in factories can vary — sometimes by a significant amount.
4 – The barrels used for testing by bullet and powder makers are not from our rifles that may not accord with SAAMI specs.
5 – What about the primers — did they use what I want to use or have bought in bulk on sale?
6 – Did they compress their loads? And, if so, by how much?
7 – Is the brass the same make — or from the same lot?
8 – What are their official policies regarding a cut-off point? Is it due to PSI or muzzle velocity?
9 – What was their barrel length?
10- And the load that gave the best accuracy — is it worthwhile if it’s the slowest?
11- What are my personal goals for a particular load and rifle? What were theirs?
12 – Do they publish their PSI?
13 – Why do “they” get 150 fps more for the same weight bullet from the same cartridge than another company?

But QuickLoad is available for a price, and likely a worthwhile investment. It isn’t perfection but it does give a close approximation of peak PSI. It can’t, of course, take into account all the possible variables, some of which appear in the list above. Google QuickLoad Ballistic Software for sources and other details.

The barrel and action: Barrel length affects muzzle velocity. By how much? There are no rules but in a high pressure cartridge in the realm of 60,000 to 65,000 psi, probably somewhere between 20 to 40 fps per inch from an 18″ to 26″ barrel. I’ve done some tests so have some knowledge. But there are variables depending not only on the barrel itself but on the powder and bullet used.

How long is the action and freebore? I’ve always seated bullets as long as the magazine, bullet and leade permitted — keeping an eye on accuracy as well. All .458 Winchesters have a very long throat (freebore), so the bullet can be seated as long as permitted and practical. This may allow for cartridge stretching well beyond SAAMI specs, permitting a greater dose of the right powder that easily beats the .458 Lott using the heavy (long) projectiles. I once owned a Remington 7400 in .35 Whelen with a long clip magazine and freebore to match. SAAMI specs were for a max COL of 3.34″. With the heavier (longer) bullets I used a COL of 3.45″. That made it  equal to a .338 Win Mag with a 22″ inch barrel in ballistics!

Cannelures for crimping can be ignored for the most part, but when or where needed you can make your own from tools  for that purpose or using a LEE crimp die. All of which depends on whether the load is 100% or more, how much of the bullet shank is into the case and the recoil generated. Frankly, I’ve used common sense and never have had a problem with a bullet being set deeper into a cartridge case from the front of the magazine wall smashing into the nose of a bullet under recoil. The one already chambered, of course, is safe in that regard as is a single-shot, but the most damage caused will be a somewhat flattened lead nose of bullets still in the magazine. Of course, the all-copper TSX’s, and the like, will not generally be affected in that regard. As mentioned previously in these blogs, neck tension along with a slightly compressed load will be enough to hinder bullets from being pushed back somewhat into the case under recoil. Another option, if need be, is to run the expander button in a drill and slightly “polish” it with very fine emery paper. That will usually remove just enough to allow a firmer grip on the bullet shank when seated.

Not only is the condition of primer pocket and cartridge case significant in any evaluation of pressure and how often the case may be used, but so also is case extraction after firing. If there is a hint of stubbornness in wanting to leave its chamber — that needs careful examination! If it’s repeatable with all in a series, the problem may be too high PSI, or it could be dirt or a rough chamber which I experienced in a new Remington chambered for the .350 Rem Mag. The chamber was not finished, it was “roughed-out” only! My gunsmith fixed that and it became a “new” rifle!

Those are just a few questions/issues — there could be many more.

Personally, I carefully look for “signs” of excessive pressure, or “signs” of low pressure. We need to know what we are looking for and identify what we are seeing. I measure brass both before and after firing for consistency of the same load in the same rifle. For that, it’s a micrometer NOT a caliper.

Also, I keep a record of how many times a cartridge case has been used – or can be safely reloaded. As a rule of thumb: if less than four it goes into the trash bin. If the primer pockets expand too much on the first firing of new brass, so that the seating of a new primer is too easy or “soft”, the load is reduced. But, I may at first try a different brand of cartridge case. There are differences. I found Federal nickel-plated brass cases in .45-70 would not handle the PSI of Remington nickel-plated .45-70 cases. In all the years of using Remington .45-70 nickel-plated brass, I never discarded even one due to primer-pocket stretching. And many of those were used up to ten times dealing with PSI in excess of 60,000. They eventually became work-hardened and were thrown out for that reason alone.

RECOIL: Previously, I’ve given the official formula for recoil energy (NOT “felt” recoil — that’s a variable determined by too many factors including the individual himself/herself). I got it from Dr. Sam Fadala many years ago and put it to memory. Recently, it appeared in OUTDOOR LIFE. In layman’s terms, it’s 1.75 x pdr wt + blt wt x MV / Rifle wt / 7000 = (number squared) x Rifle wt / 64.4 = recoil energy in ft-lbs. How this works for my .458 Win Mag: 1.75 x 70 +350 x 2510/10.6/7000 = 15.98 x 15.98 = 255.472 x 10.6 = 2708/64.4 = 42 ft-lbs (Then that’s reduced in my rifle by 15% due to the Mag-Na-Porting = 35.7 ft-lbs.) A handy pocket calculator will work like a charm for comparison of differing loads. Kinetic energy is a major factor of recoil, but not the only one.

Of course, the above load is one only that’s both accurate and practical for ranges under 250 yards.

That doesn’t cover everything in regard to INTERNAL BALLISTICS, but the essentials have been cared for I think.

Next time: EXTERNAL BALLISTICS

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Hunting Black Bear — What Rifle? – P5

It has been said — I assume by those who know — that black bear is the second most common species of big game being hunted in North America. For myself it is the most common. There are several reasons why that is so:

<(This is probably the bear I shot in 2015 — but about 6 p.m. on a later day, not after dark.)

1) My location. Though the number of domestic bear hunters is increasing, the ratio of bear hunters to deer hunters is only about 1 to 10. Although, some local moose and deer hunters now have a bear license in camp as well.

2) They are about as numerous as white-tailed deer, but less concentrated in a given area; more widely scattered in other words. Bears are not herd animals. They are loners.

3) In my view, they are more interesting and a greater challenge.

4) They are more numerous, less costly, easier to hunt solo, and closer to home than moose. Unless one lives where the moose dwell, it’s a costly adventure that requires more hunters and equipment. I like hunting moose, but I gave up on that idea several years ago and came to the conclusion that hunting bear was more exciting and gave as much satisfaction. In the end, I was more successful in shooting a bear than shooting a moose. The ratio was about 1 in 6 tries for moose (with a partner, but no outfitter), and 1 in 2.5 for bear (solo). Of course, I didn’t shoot every bear sighted or where an opportunity presented itself. And there were less than a handful of misses. Moose? Well, there were a few opportunities that didn’t work out as well.

So that’s why these blogs are more focused on bear hunts than anything else. Yes, I’ve done lots of hunts for small game, varmints, predators and birds –and enjoyed it — but there’s something about bears — their nature, strength and intelligence, and always presenting the prospect of danger that portends risk blended with adventure — that I don’t find in any other hunt. I’ll give more time and details to that subject at a later date.

Now, back to our theme of Rifles for Black Bears: 

So far, we’ve had a look at examples from sub-Mediums and Mediums for all potential conditions that one may encounter in a solo wilderness hunt for black bear.

(That’s a CZ550 in .458 Win Mag over my left shoulder.)

Now, our theme turns to BIG BORES for bear: That’s ANY bear under all conditions, but BLACK BEAR in particular. I’ve mentioned that my favorites are in .458-caliber — the .45-70 and .458 Winchester. I’ll not elaborate as to why that is so other than to say .458″ has been my only experience in big-bore rifles in both of the cartridges mentioned, including eight rifles in .45-70 and 3 in the .458 Winchester. I’ve excluded all others for myself as they have too many limitations — notably in both appropriate projectiles and limited experience for our domestic situations, as well as in rifles suitable for any big game hunting. The one exception to that might be the Ruger Alaskan in .416 Ruger. But due to the paucity of factory ammo, and even component bullets for handloading, I couldn’t personally grant it much thought as a serious black bear cartridge under all conditions. While a .416-caliber would likely come in second place to .458-caliber, only the .458″ has readily available projectiles suitable for any and all conditions one might encounter for white-tails at 15 yards in thick bush to moose or elk at 400.

The .45-70: It would be very difficult to win any argument against the use of a modern-constructed .45-70 for use on any game animal, or dangerous game, on the North American Continent. It has done it all, thousands of times over! So, I don’t need to make that argument. Its possible limitations are two: Range for the inexperienced and using the wrong bullet.

In the 1895 Marlin of modern production, in its Classic mode (22″ barrel), it can attain about 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle from 400gr bullets. If a bullet of 400 grains is properly constructed, that is with a heavy jacket and minimal lead exposed, it can take on large moose and grizzly within realistic ranges. Some have used heavy hard-cast Garrett and Buffalo Bore ammo to hunt even Cape buff and elephant with success. While I’m not promoting that, nonetheless, that should give us an indication of it’s capability against the largest and most dangerous bears of this continent.

In shopping for the right bullets for a black bear hunt, find out what’s available. I’d recommend a good 350gr or 400gr. The 350 Speer is excellent but needs velocity over 2000 fps for expansion — depending on range of course. The 400 -A-Frame looks good, and also the 400gr Woodleigh, though I’ve not used either of those. I’ve had success from the 405gr Remington at over 2000 fps if you can find any. And, I’ve used a 465gr semi-hardcast at 1900 fps with great results.

The Ruger #1: my gunsmith gave mine a longer throat so the monolithics from Barnes could be seated “long”. The 300 TSX and 350 TSX are good possibilities. But they need speed for expansion. Also, the 300 TTSX with the poly-tip should give good expansion at relatively low impact velocity.

But most any .458″ bullet can be used in the Ruger #1 up to the 500gr Hornady. The 1-20 rate twist will adequately stabilize that bullet. I was able to get 2000+ fps from my first #1 Ruger without the improved throat.

The .458 Winchester Magnum: In regard to this, I’ve written quite a bit in recent weeks, and concerning a CZ 550, a lot of details appeared in these blogs about a decade ago. So this will be a summary of all that plus an update on my current Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum purchased last August (2018).

There is an ongoing thread about the .458 Win Mag on The Accurate Forum under BIG BORES — the .458 Win Mag. It’s now over 100 pages but worthwhile once past the typical .458 Lott group who try the frequent argument that the “Lott is better”, who are obviously not conversant with the facts. It is there demonstrated that the .458 Winchester can be made “more powerful” than the .458 Lott through handloads — which I presented in my manual a decade ago. The argument for the .458 Win surpassing the Lott has been taken up by “Ron” (his handle on AR is RIP) and advanced by logic and experience as potentially superior to the Lott due to the standard long throat of the .458 Winchester — which, again, was my argument in 2008 – 2010 in both my manual and on AR.

The following is from my records of that era, plus the more recent acquisition of a Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum:

(The CZ550 in .458 Win Mag. Left click on pic for a better view)

Rifle: CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum, 25″ barrel with SAAMI throat:
350gr TSX, COL = 3.44″; MV = 2762 fps/5928 ft-lbs (corrected to MV)
500gr Hor, COL = 3.53″; MV = 2283 fps/5786 ft-lbs (corrected to MV)

Rifle: Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 Win Magnum, 24″ barrel with SAAMI throat:
350gr TSX, COL = 3.46″; MV = 2707 fps/5694 ft-lbs (corrected to MV)
350gr Hor FP = COL = 3.115″; MV = 2491, 2486, 2489 corrected to MV = 2510fps/4895 ft-lbs
500gr Hor RN Interloc, COL= 3.53″; MV = 2251 fps/5625 ft-lbs
450gr X-Bullet, COL = 3.76″; MV = 2342 fps/5480 ft-lbs

Comments:
1) Not all loads for the CZ 550 are given — these are representative.
2) The loads for the Ruger #1 Tropical are not necessarily maximum. They were first tests.
3) The 350gr Hor FP is very accurate and consistent at 2510 fps into .865″ for 3 at 100 yds. The rifle is sighted for that load and will be used for a bear hunt in May of this year(2019) – hopefully! Range will be relatively short at less than 100 yards.
4) The goal is to develop other loads commencing in the spring of this year.
5) There’s little doubt in my mind that 2300 fps is possible from 500s, 2400 fps from 450s, and 2500 fps from 400s. I’m expecting at least 2750 fps from the 350 TSX. I believe those are realistic expectations from the Ruger Tropical. All bullets will be seated as long as practical. I’ve done that in all handloads for over forty rifles in four decades of handloading cartridges from the .22 Hornet to the .458 Winchester Magnum. So that is NOT something I commenced doing with a .458 Win Mag!

Without too much repetition, I hope, the point of this series of blogs has to do with Rifles for Bears commencing with the 7mm magnums up through certain “mediums” and all the way to Big Bores.

As previously explained, my firsthand knowledge of Big Bores is limited to the .45-70 and .458 Winchester Magnum. And that has involved considerable analysis and experience. As to others, such as .416s and .470s, or various .500s and above, I have determined from literature and the experience of others the essential features of their ballistics and field results. Also, practical comparisons have been made based on available data. I’ve therefore come to the firm conviction that the all-around best of the Big Bores was created by Winchester in 1956 — the .458 Winchester Magnum. And due to its versatility from the hundreds of available bullets in .458″, plus new powders, it can be both effective and efficient on any critter from coyote to elephant at any reasonable range. It’s not limited to 200 yards as so-called experts have imposed upon it in their ignorance.

(A few bullets among others in .458″ that I’ve tested and/or used in hunting)

Consider the following as realistic ballistic results from Barnes 350gr TSX and 500gr TSX. If, as claimed by Barnes, these bullets will expand in big game down to an impact velocity of 1600 fps due to the hollow cavity feature designed for each, then 400 yards should be effective from each on moose-size game, though the 350 will shoot somewhat “flatter”. These results are projected from my Ruger No.1 Tropical with a 24″ barrel. Powders to be used will be H4198, H335, H4895 and AA2230.

Ambient conditions are average for my hunting area in spring or fall:
Elevation = 1150′
Temp: 60*F
RH: 56%

350gr TSX; BC = .278 (official, but my tests indicate over .300)
SD = .238
MV = 2750 fps/5876 ft-lbs/ -1.60″/ 231 TE
100= 2439 fps/4621 ft-lbs/ +3.66″/ 181 TE
200= 2148 fps/3587 ft-lbs/ +3.03″/ 141 TE
300= 1879 fps/2743 ft-lbs/ -5.18″/ 108 TE
400= 1633 fps/2073 ft-lbs/ -23.3″/ 81 TE

Recoil = 46.5 ft-lbs with Mag-Na-Porting

500gr TSX; BC = .412; SD = .341
MV = 2300 fps/5872 ft-lbs/ -1.60″/ 330 TE
100= 2112 fps/4951 ft-lbs/ +3.12″/ 278 TE
200= 1933 fps/4148 ft-lbs/ +0.00″/ 233 TE
300= 1764 fps/3454 ft-lbs/ -12.4″/ 194 TE
400= 1607 fps/2867 ft-lbs/ -36.1″/ 161 TE

Recoil = 55.5 ft-lbs with Mag-Na-Porting

By way of comparison, a .375 Ruger or H&H shooting a 300gr TSX at 2655 fps MV would have a TE of 157 at the muzzle and 72 at 400 yards. It would shoot a bit flatter and have about the same recoil of 46.2 ft-lbs from a 9 lb rifle as the 350gr load from my 10.6 lb Ruger #1, both ready for action. The .375 H&H load is taken from the Barnes #4 manual.

For a mature bull moose (1200 – 1400 lbs) I’d prefer a TE of at least 70. The .375s make 72 at 400 yards, and that’s due to a rather poor BC of .357 for the 300gr TSX. A 300gr Partition with a BC of .398 would show somewhat better.

My 9.3 x 62 Mauser will make 68 TE at 500 yards employing the 286 Partition. At 400 it’s making 79 TE, somewhat ahead of both the Ruger .375 and H&H. Of course, that bullet has a much better BC than either the 300 TSX or Nosler Partition in .375-caliber, while the SD is identical. That’s one reason I’ve chosen the 9.3 x 63 Mauser over the two .375s. It’s logical, NOT sentimental!

I prefer truth (facts) over emotion — that’s who I am; others may look at it differently and that’s OK too!

Til the next: Looking more deeply into rifle ballistics (including my formula).

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL