Is a .300 Win Mag the Best All-Around Choice?

. . . . . . . excluding thick-skinned African DG.

After a number of years in my life-long hunting career, I believed so. The only rifle cartridge that I’ve owned more rifles in was the .45-70. Handloaded, both have had a very strong appeal: around 4000 ft-lbs from each while employing significantly distinct projectiles: .458-caliber heavy bullets with rather blunt profiles from .45-70s at modest speeds; and comparatively much lighter weight, sleek bullets with high BCs and very fast speeds from the Winchester .300 Magnum. . . . The best of both worlds! What one couldn’t do the other could.

For large, tough and potentially dangerous game, up close and personal, I’d choose the .45-70 firing an appropriate 400-grain at 2100-2200 fps. Past 200 – 250 yds, the .300 takes over. But the .300 is no slouch up close and personal shooting a 200gr premium bullet at ~3000 fps!

So then, a handloaded .300 Winchester Magnum is not a bad choice for a brown bear in Alaska to a western antelope in Alberta, to an eland on safari. That’s a pretty broad and deep hunting environment. In addition, of course, it equally qualifies for sheep in the mountains and elk on the plains.

It has also been successfully employed as a sniper rifle and in pro target competitions. And it not only is highly regarded for all of the afore-mentioned activities, but with such a pedigree it is still very prominent in the midst of multiple modern pretenders that make claim to better credentials, such as the .300 RUM.

Its successes are related to the timeing of its introduction (1963), the Winchester Company, the M70 rifle, its case capacity, and .308 caliber – the favorite of Americans. The cartridge case is an elongated .338 Win Mag that preceded it by five years in 1958. But it has a shorter neck than the .338 which initially brought it under criticism by some gun writers. Personally, I’ve never found that as a handicap, and never experienced any difficulties in consequence. Today, it’s rarely mentioned by writers or users.

Bullets and Ballistics:

Though there are component projectiles for handloading as light as 110gr for varmints, and 125gr for small game which may be used in the .300 Win, that is far from it’s intended purpose. Usually factory products start at 150gr and go up from there to 220gr, but the highest demand for commercial products are 180s and 200s. And not surprisingly, that is usually the bullet weights employed by handloading hunters as well. While there is a 190gr ABLR and a 210gr ABLR with high BCs of .597 and .661 respectively from Nosler, the legendary 200gr Partition with “only” a .481 BC, is still a favorite for moose hunters where most shots will be this side of 400 yds. But for a potential longer reach to 500 yds the 200 Partition is still capable for that task. But a potentially better Nosler is their newer 200gr ABLR with a .588 BC, extending usefulness on large bull elk to +600 yds. In fact, the .300 Win Mag is a favorite for just such applications.

So, the point of all these proven results is to state conclusively that the .300 Win is one of the best of the best for world-wide hunting.

And to add a personal sentiment: If I were to do it all over again, among all of the numerous .300 mag contenders available today, I’d still choose the .300 Win!

Why?

Because it can do the most within costs, weight, choices of rifles and components, where – for example – a .30-378 Wby Mag adds nothing practically with +200 fps except a burnt-out barrel in less than a thousand rounds! And it has less recoil than a .300 Wby if rifles are the same weight. And with barrels of the same length, the difference in ballistics is insignificant. How do I know that? Because in addition to six .300 Win Mags, I’ve owned one in .300 Wby with a 24″ barrel.

Added to that was one in .308 Norma Mag with a custom 21″ barrel. From son Phil, I had gifted to me a Ruger 24″ .300 Win Mag barrel that was given to him by a friend who wanted a .300 Wby barrel on the Ruger rifle. That Ruger 24″ barrel was recut by my “smith” to fit the .308 Norma, and lost 1″ to become a 23″, .300 Win Mag custom rifle. Eventually, it got sold, but 3000 fps from 180s was usual. I still have that 21″ .308 Norma Mag barrel. After many, many trials from various combinations of bullets and powders, 3000 fps was attained from 180s as a .308 Norma Mag (All .300 mags are .308-cal).

Barrel lengths:

. . . . . . make a difference!

While most factory .300 Win Mags have 24″ barrels, it’s best results are from a 26″, which may be up to +100 fps. That, of course, depends on handloads and the bullets and powders in use. One of the half-dozen had a 26″ barrel – a Browning A-Bolt SS, LH. It was fast! And very accurate – mostly 1/2 moa! 3200 fps from 180s and +3000 fps from 200s. And the rifle was very comfortable to shoot without a brake.

Speaking of which, I’ve never understood the fears of those who reject the .300 Win on the basis of its supposed recoil. My first – a Winchester M70 – was too heavy for my liking, so got traded on a SAKO .338 Win FS. The whole Win 70 package in .300 Win was more suitable for a .375 H&H, or even a .458 Win Mag! But then, I’ve had so many rifles with far more “kick” than a .300 Win, that I treated them like a .223 Rem, and could shoot them just as well, whether from offhand or from the bench. When I got my first – the M70 I mentally prepared myself for a “hard-kicking” rifle! It didn’t happen. In fact, when a much younger hunter/friend who used a .308 for most things, asked to give my .300 a try, he was surprised that the recoil was far less than expected – and I never “down-loaded” that rifle to ease the imagined pain.

After the .338 Win in the SAKO FS, at 35 – 40 ft-lbs of recoil, the .375 H&H M70 that followed seemed “normal”! Of course, it was much heavier – in fact, like its predecessor, the .300 M70 – it had a barrel of the same contour as the M70 .458 with a smaller bore that made it heavier than the Win .458! In those days I was shooting hundreds, if not thousands of handloads in .338s, .375 and .45-70s! In consequence, a .300 Win Mag seemed like a varmint rifle by comparison! So, “felt recoil” is a comparative thing, and mostly mental! True, when we get to the real Big-Bore heavy-hitters, they can do damage to the shooter if he/she isn’t adequately prepared for it! But not a .300 Win Mag! Recoil is about 35 ft-lbs compared to about twice that from a .458 Win at 60 – 70 ft-lbs, or a .460 Wby at +100 ft-lbs being 3x that of a .300 Win. So, it is really a matter of mental gymnastics and perspective.

Did I need a .300 Winchester Magnum? Well. . . . Yes! A .300 Win is not necessarily more costly than a comparable .30-06, and for a particular hunt, say for a bull moose, I’d not specifically choose a .30-06 when a .300 Win has a 150 yd advantage and will hit with more force than a .30-06 at any range! So, based on how I look at and evaluate matters, a .300 mag is the better all-around choice! It’s simple math and logic. Quite a few years ago I swapped 3 rifles for two. The two I had in mind were identical in most features except in cartridges and bores: Both were Browning A-Bolt magnums with 26″ SS barrels and actions in left-hand, and clip magazines attached to their floor plates that could be removed and carried in your jacket pocket until needed – or a second one of each could be purchased and kept loaded in your jacket pocket. One was in .300 Win Mag and the other a .375 H&H mag. At the time I felt that would be sufficent for any big game I might ever hunt, including Africa.

Things don’t always turn out as planned as the .375 H&H had an off-center bore from the factory. But it was relatively light and very fast – as was the .300 Win Mag. Not a bad plan but the .375 H&H was returned for a .338 Win in an identical rifle to the .300 Win – so eventually the 300 “went down the road”, and the .338 was rechambered to a .340 Wby which made the others obsolescent. With the passing of time, I added another .300 Win as a backup for moose hunts, and the .340 was sold and replaced by the 9.3 x 62 Mauser for moose and big bear as most of those hunts were closer to home.

A .300 Win as a backup? Yep, here and there:

< This “trophy” was shot from my ladder-stand in the background line of trees. My backup to the 9.3 x 62 was a .300 Win in a Savage bolt-action.

< and here on a moose hunt to the “Far North” of our province, the same Savage in .300 Win Mag was the backup to my CZ550 in .458 Winchester Magnum.

< The Savage rifle in .300 Winchester Magnum.

Ballistics:

200gr Nosler AccuBond

SD = .301

BC = .588

MV = 3000 fps/3996 ft-lbs

50 yds =2922 fps/3790 ft-lbs

100 yds = 2845 fps/3594 ft-lbs

200 yds = 2696 fps/3226 ft-lbs

300 yds = 2551 fps/2890 ft-lbs

400 yds = 2411 fps/2581 ft-lbs

500 yds = 2275 fps/2298 ft-lbs

600 yds = 2144 fps/2040 ft-lbs*

*Assuming an able rifleman, this load shot into shoulder, heart or lungs should immobilize within 50 yds a 1/2 ton moose at 600 yds, though most are shot well inside 400 yds.

What about an Alaska/Yukon moose that could go 3/4 ton? I ‘d take a bigger bore rifle and limit shots to ~400 yds, unless the only chances were a bit longer. And a .338 to .375 would be my choice in magnums – .340 or .375 Wby or thereabouts.

Rifle: .375 AI or Wby:

Ballistics: 300gr Sierra or AB

SD = .301

BC = .480

MV = 2800 fps/5222 ft-lbs

500 yds = 1964 fps/2569 ft-lbs = 86 TE = approx. 1 ton animal with a vital hit. (.375 HH, MV = 2675 fps/4766 ft-lbs/ 500 yds = 1862 fps/2310 ft-lbs = 76.5 TE = approx. 1 ton animal with a vital hit.)

It would be quite challenging to improve on a 2 rifle safari of a .300 Win and a .375 Wby or H&H.

If you prefer the .300 Wby over the .300 Win, that’s OK by me. As stated, I prefer the .300 Win because the rifles, cases and loaded ammo are generally less costly and more readily available, especially in out-of-the-way places.

Till the next: The advantages of a .340 Wby Magnum.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

RIFE Recoil Effect

Note: that’s “effect” not “affect”. The first is a nown and the second a transitive verb. One is a result, the other a cause.

Effect – “anything brought about by a cause”.

So this discussion is about the effect (result) of recoil on the shooter, which of necessity involves a cause.

< That was my .340 Wby Mag. My son, Phil, and I were a long way from home on a moose hunt – I was in my sixties. The load was a 250gr Partition at 3000 fps = 54 ft-lbs of free recoil.- more than twice that of a .30-06.

In my last essay, I was dealing with Terminal Ballistics from 4 classes of rifles: .30-30; 6.5 Creedmoor; .30-06 and .375 H&H, and promised to discuss the issue of recoil this time around, using those four classes as examples.

As previously told, the .30-30 has been historically useful from small to large game depending on a number of factors, but best for medium game at modest ranges. On the other end of that spectrum is the .375 H&H that may be used as a popular example of a rifle for large and dangerous game. While each of those two has certainly been useful on other classes of game than their normal usage, they excel in particular niches.

The .30-30 in a Win 94 with a 20″ barrel will shoot a handloaded170gr at ~2100 fps = about 11 ft-lbs of recoil (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The 6.5 Creedmoor in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 22 – 24″ barrel, shooting a 142gr at 2750 fps = about 17 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The .30-06 in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 22″ barrel, shooting a 210gr at 2650 fps = ~ 25 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

The .375 H&H in a typical bolt-action repeater with a 24″ barrel, shooting a 300gr at 2650 fps = ~46 ft-lbs (depending on actual ballistics and rifle weight).

We’re not going down “rabbit holes” here, but they are representative of average conditions, not specific in each and every situation. Nonetheless, they reveal in a general sense the disparity between those four categories of rifles when handloaded for hunting purposes.

But what do those numbers feel like in the real world vs the theoretical one? While the physics is real, “felt recoil” may be somewhat different. How is that possible, we might legitimately ask.

Over about 70 years of hunting activity, I started with a BB gun, then a single-shot 22 LR. Though I actually deer hunted with some borrowed centerfire rifles (a British .303 and a .30-30), my first owned firearm for big game was a bolt-action 12ga shotgun with a clip magazine that held two, plus another in the chamber. It turned out to be a great grouse gun but a poor deer firearm because of a built-in tight, non-adjustable choke which I didn’t know about in those days in using Foster-type slugs for deer. At the time and place, buckshot was illegal – and please don’t ask me why because I haven’t a clue!

As far as recoil was concerned, I never feared any of it from the .303 Brit or 12ga in particular. The .303 was a Jungle Carbine in pristine condition with the flash hider cut off. Not yet being a handloader, everything was factory. But I could only afford either the .303 or the 12ga. I chose the latter because I was seeing a lot more birds than deer, and figured I could use the slugs for deer until my first big game rifle.

A plump doe went down faster than I could blink. . . . and just as fast she “arose from the dead” and beat a hasty retreat into thick brush. 20 yds separated us when I fired point blank into her broadside stance just after the sun had disappeared behind trees. In 15 minutes it was total darkness! No blood! No fur! No nothing! I’d missed a big game animal at point-blank range! Unbelievable! Later, I took the shotgun to a gravel pit, set up a cardboard target at 25 yds and still couldn’t hit it from 4 slugs that were being flung hither and yon after being squished by that full choke!

Oh well. . . I’d have to wait until I could afford a rifle. In the meanwhile my wife loved the tender, succulent birds’ breasts from grouse taken in the hardwoods!

But what about the 12ga’s recoil? Never noticed it! Nor that of the .303 British Carbine. The 12ga about 20 ft-lbs, and the .303 about 18 ft-lbs. Both in the neighborhood of a .308 Winchester.

From there I upped matters to a handloaded .30-06 – about the same as a 7 lb 12ga firing birdshot. From there to a 7 Rem Mag semi-auto BAR – 150s at 2950 fps from handloads = 23 ft-lbs less the auto system. Actually quite comfortable though too heavy.

Then my first .300 Win Mag bolt-action repeater: 180gr at 3050 fps = 32 ft-lbs from a 9 lb rifle.

Followed by my first .338 Win Mag – a SAKO carbine FS/20″ barrel: 200s, 225s, 250s and 270s = avg 37 ft-lbs

Then my .375 H&Hs and .458 Win Mags = 45 to 65 ft-lbs!

But, the recoil KING was my Ruger No.1 LT in .45-70 (long throat) at up to 76 ft-lbs from a 500gr at 2212 fps/5432 ft-lbs. Actually, those 500gr Hornady’s on average were 503 grains. . . So, that’s 5464 ft-lbs – to be more precise. That’s the number I usually give for recoil from that load of 75 grains of H335 at 3.19 COL.

< Add 14 fps for correction to the muzzle at 5 yds from the Chrony.

I gave that rehearsal to firstly show the progression over a period of ~66 years! Secondly, I did mature in the handling of recoil but have also gotten much older which puts me today well beyond my prime, so I’ve significantly cut back the effects of recoil in several ways.

That’s the point of this disclosure.

When I traded my Ruger No.1 LT (45-70) in 2018 for the Ruger No.1H in .458 it was to reduce “felt recoil” while still maintaining ballistics similar to the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 with its long throat – that enabled bullets to be seated significantly less deeply into the .45-70 cases – allowing more of the best powders to be used without increased psi. That worked wonderfully. But that rifle at 8.25 lbs ready to hunt became too light for me as I approached 80 yrs. The Ruger No1H in .458 was 2 lbs heavier and had the Mag-Na-Ports. So those two factors allowed me to still use the ballistics I was used to from the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. But I was also losing weight rather quickly from the right places. Today, for instance, out of the shower I weigh what I did at age 17, and what I did when married at age 21.

Having lost 45 lbs over the past decade in exchange for a rifle that’s 2 lbs heavier? I’ll take that any day in rough country without sidewalks! Of course, that assumes I’m acting responsibly in the maintenance of muscle strength!

So, the NO 1 way of reducing felt-recoil from any particular load of any rifle is:

CONTRARY TO CURRENT PRACTICE: Use a heavier rifle for the same ballistics! Depending on the cartridge and load, that may be 40 ft-lbs from a .338 Win Mag (for example) that only weighs 8 lbs ready to roll. Rather, choose one (or exchange for one) that weighs 9 lbs ready with the same pet load. Of course, there are other ways to add or reduce weight that affects felt recoil.

NO 2: Change scopes. Depending on what we’re hunting, and where, a different rifle scope can alter oveall weight by several ounces. Same with a sling or even the stock itself. In these cases we want to add weight, not reduce it – but the goal is to reduce felt recoil while maintaining the same or similar ballistics. Adding weight plus slightly reducing the velocity can make a significant distinction in comfort level. The loss of 50 fps will only affect downrange results to a minimal degree. That may simply mean reducing the load by 1 or 1.5 grains of the same powder, or switching to a different powder that’s slightly faster and using less of it than in the slower propellant. Of course, psi will be a bit higher to maintain the same MV.

NO 3: Use a different stock. If walnut, try a synthetic, or vise versa. Or even a stock with different ergonomics.

NO 4: Lots of heavy-hitting rifles are now ported, or have brakes, including both factory and custom. Of my three, 2 have brakes: The Traditions G3 single-shot has ports that surround the end of the barrel for 1.5 inches near the muzzle. It’s chambered in .35 Whelen. I’d say it works well enough in reducing felt recoil by up to 20%, depending on the actual load. Instead of 38 ft-lbs for the 225 AB at 2840 fps, I’m getting around 30 -31 ft-lbs. And that’s significant! In the .458 I calculate about 10% reduction from the Mag-na-Porting.

NO 5: Use a lighter bullet and/or a more efficient one. I’ve gone to a 300gr Sierra BT in my .375 H&H. It is more than adequate for my purposes. I’ll not be chasing Cape Buffalo any time soon. Its construction and high BC makes it very efficent at long range as well as at close encounters. It’s ballistic coefficient (BC) at impact velocities between 2500 fps and 1600 is .480, otherwise about .470. The only other .375-cal 300gr with a slightly higher BC is the Nosler AB at .485. But tests have shown the Sierra to be a tougher bullet and less expensive. No doubt, at close ranges the Hornady 300gr DGX or Barnes 300gr TSX would be better choices for Cape Buffalo, but RinB (his handle) on http://www.24hourcampfire.com has said that the 250gr TTSX was as good as the 270gr LRX in killing Cape buff and better than either the 300 TSX or 300gr A-Frame, both of which he’s also used in killing a couple of the 19 Cape buffalo he has terminated. The last five were all killed with the 250 TTSX at about 2850 fps, three of which only needed a single shot, and they all made exit in penetration. As to the 300gr A-Frame, he had to use three and none made complete penetration. Due to those facts, I bought a couple of boxes of the 250gr TTSX for a bear hunt in early 2024. Later that year I was able to get the 300gr SBT and loaded those for the fall bear hunt. But I fully expect the 250gr TTSX would out-penetrate the 300gr Sierra in tough media and likely hold onto a higher % of retained weight. But on live game this side of the water, I’d fully expect the 300gr Sierra to perform as needed. It has proven itself on large N.A. game despite several critics’ view of non-bonded BT bullets. It has a thick 0.050″ copper-alloy jacket and a tough lead-alloy core.

< The 300gr Sierra BT on the right and the 300gr TSX on the left. At the same COL we can see how the Sierra could accomodate more powder without compression in addition to a much higher BC of .480 vs only .357 for the 300gr TSX.

But that 300gr SBT at 2674 fps is delivered by either 77 grs of RL-17 or 81.5 grs of StaBALL 6.5 = ~46 ft-lbs of recoil sans brake. Rl-17 is slightly faster with less powder than StaBALL 6.5, so recoil is similar from each load. Because of the current absence of Rl-17 in the market, I’ve switched to StaBALL 6.5.

On the other hand, the 250gr TTSX at 2850 fps over 77 grs of CFE-223 = 38 ft-lbs of recoil. I’ve no doubts at this stage of matters, that it will do equally well for my purposes. There is one exception, being that the 250 TTSX isn’t as consistently accurate as the 300 SBT. Hopefully, more tests at longer range will prove that to be incorrect.

<The 250gr Barnes TTSX crimped into the top cannelure for max COL.

Whatever the case, it’s true that recoil can be reduced by choosing another bullet that holds it downrange velocity more efficiently and/or a lighter bullet with higher MV with less recoil.

Here are the data points of that suggestion as illustrated above in the 2 bear loads from my .375 H&H with its 22″ barrel:

The 300gr SBT @ 2674 fps: zero at 250 yds and temp at 65*F/40*C/ Elevation = 1200 ft. RH = 58%

The 250gr TTSX @ 2850 fps: zero, temp/ elevation and RH the same.

300gr Sierra BT at MV = 2674 fps avg./4762 ft-lbs; Recoil = 46 ft-lbs

at 300 yds = 2172 fps/3141 ft-lbs/ -4.39″

at 450 yds = 1942 fps/2513 ft-lbs/ – 29.13″

0000000000000000000000000000000000

The 250gr TTSX at MV = 2850 fps avg./4508 ft-lbs; Recoil = 38 ft-lbs

at 300 yds = 2264 fps/2844 ft-lbs/ -3.93″

at 450 yds = 1999 fps/2218 ft-lbs/ -26.5″

Thus, all told there are multiple ways and means of lessening the effect of recoil from any rifle, but especially the powerful mid-bores and Big Bores.

To reiterate; plus additional commentary that I’ve previously presented in other blogs:

1. Increase the total weight of the rifle package ready to hunt.

2. Choose a heavier scope.

3. Change the stock to one that’s more ergonomically suitable.

4. Get acquainted with the rifles ballistics well before using it on game. That means shooting it alot in developing loads and in practice, including field practice where possible. About 150 to 200 rounds is a practical goal.

5. Use good posture at the bench. Don’t slouch or use “bench style”! Sit up straight and hold onto the rifle with both hands, pulling it tight to the shoulder!

6. If a handloader – and who can learn the rifles varied capabilities without handloads? – develop a variety for distinct purposes.

7. Familiarize yourself with its operation until it becomes an extension of mind and body.

8. Use reduced loads for the heaviest bullets and/or employ lighter premium bullets with high BCs that will retain most of their original weight after impact. They will equal or surpass heavier lead-core bullets in penetration.

9. Have a muzzle brake installed if the rifle didn’t include one from the manufacturer. I finally had one installed on my Tika T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62. It was eating the scopes mounted.

Just some practical ways that I’ve employed (as well as other shooters/hunters) over the years for managing any “hard-kicking” rifles!

10. And one last thing that is the KEY to all this: ATTITUDE! If you’re not determined to MANAGE it, IT will manage you! That is, like so many others, excuses will be made to justify a negative attitude like “A .300 Win Mag isn’t needed.” Period. Maybe, maybe not! But is that the real point, or situation? If somebody is only hunting bambi, then I might agree. But there’s a lot more to hunt than deer that may go less than 250 lbs at whatever range. And someone with that attitude is unnecessarily limiting themselves, if they only understood that fact!

Somebody “in the know” has put it this way (not necessarily a perfect quote, but close enough): “Unless someone is willing to learn to shoot a .375 H&H, they are limiting themselves of a lot of big game hunting because the .375 H&H is the least powerful rifle fully capable of cleanly taking any game on this planet, dangerous or not.”

Not an exact quote, but close enough in intention. Though many will want to debate or deny that, I fully support it’s intention. The motive is that sanity demands fully capable terminal ballistics under all conditions – not only ideal ones! In general, that’s been the motivation over the many years and conditions of my hunts.

With that attitude and motive, climbing the recoil mountain started at the foothills, but didn’t terminated there, anymore than a true mountain climber stops at the foothills. As stated, it has been a progression that has taken me to the pinnacal of Mount .458 Win, and there I’ve rested because the scenery beyond that is downhill and then flatland.

I’ve stated numerous times, with the strongest possible belief, that the main effect of recoil is mental and emotional. It’s what we think about it rather than what it physically feels like . Thus the expression: “felt recoil” – meaning the physics in numerical format in comparison with “normal recoil” from “standard rifle ballistics” for North American medium game like white-tailed deer – about 10 to 20 ft-lbs. And even then there are those who vociferlously complain over the recoil of a .30-06 Springfield! And especially is that true in today’s sporting world of light rifles with faster and lighter bullets!

If there was genuine concern over the kick of “standard ballistics” from traditional rifles, then why all the hoopla over rifles for “deer hunting” that weigh less than 5 pounds? Gimme a break from all this hypocrisy. . . . Please! In truth it’s the latest gimmic to foist new rifle sales!

You may scoff at my choices for bears, especially the black-coloured ones! But recently in Alaska two men, one in his sixties and another at 70 years, in distinct locations and under varied conditions, were both attacked and killed by juvenile year-old black bears! One bear weighed 70 lbs! And one of those men was attacked and killed just outside his house! And that’s not hearsay or rumors, I read it recently in a couple of online news services from Alaska with official reporting by police and other authorities. Ergo: a 350 lb black bear in my neighbourhood is nothing for me to take lightly! The pain he/she could inflict would make 45 ft-lbs of protection seem like a blessing from heaven if and when needed! Right? Yea and Amen!

You see what happens in Alaska is that too many bears seems “normal” to the point of NOT taking them seriously! “They don’t bother us, so why bother them?” Till someone gets injured or killed by a yearling? “But they’re so cute and cuddly. . . .”

A number of years ago – like about 15 of so – I was installing a new blind over newly installed kitchen cabinets at the kitchen window. My wife went shopping so I decided to put them in place. They were made in China with heavy-type Venetian slats and Chinese screws to hold everything together and in place. I got on the counter top by step ladder, and couldn’t stand straight-up with my head against the ceiling. In wrestling with screws that didn’t fit tightly into a normal power screw driver, I was imbalanced and grabbed hold of the new fancy crown on top of the upper cabinets for support. The problem was – and I was totally oblivious of that fact – that the crown was not yet fastened to the upper cabinets, and it let go of the cabinet and me with it. I landed on the kitchen floor with first my left hand and wrist taking the initial blow, followed next by my left forearm and elbow, and finally by my left shoulder – all within a second or less! At the time I weighed about 185 lbs, and the fall taken for arm and wrist was about 6 feet. How fast? 6 ft per 1/2 second = 12 fps x 12 fps/450400 = 0. 0003197 x (185 lbs x 7000 = 1295000 grains) = 414 ft-lbs! My shoulder and arm absorbed 414 ft-lbs of recoil! I got off the floor, mad as a hornet and climbed back onto the counter top and finished the job of hanging the blind to spite the Chinese! When my wife arrived home and noticed a bulge on my left elbow the size of an egg she wanted to know what happened! I brushed it off by bashing the Chinese!

And there’s the infamous blind still in place after fifteen years!

So don’t complain within my hearing about how awful the recoil of your rifle is! (Just blame the Chinese if you run out of other excuses!)

Till the next . . . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Terminal Ballistics of Firearms

This is a topic that historically has been and will be judged by both physics and/or results.

In the not-too-distant-past, the science of physics was appealed to, and with some persons – both “scientists” and “doers”- it still has merit in today’s hunting experience.

< This is physics. I wouldn’t have known with any cerainty what the 405gr Remington was doing from the muzzle of my 1895 Marlin in .45-70 without the chronograph. Then other calculations were made based on the claimed BC of the bullet: Its trajectory and energy at various ranges. The distance between the Chrony and the muzzle of the rifle was 15′, so based on Remington’s claimeded BC of .281 (based on their factory load for the 405gr, its trajectory and energy at various ranges), I added 14 fps correction to 2101 = 2115 fps/4022 ft-lbs. I shot a nice bear with that handload at 97 yds downhill from blind to bait barrel. It was a going-away shot into left flank that made exit just behind the right shoulder. Impact velocity was 1835 fps/3028 ft-lbs. That was the physics. A bang-flop was the result.

<This was the bait-barrel at 97 yds. The bear was leaving to the left.

BUT! In today’s media and by very “vocal doers”, arguments presented are very much dependent on empircal results alone. The claim is made that the latest cartridges/rifles – with higher spin rates, to stabilize those new long and slim bullets, with very high ballistic coefficients – have changed the game. And they present numbers to prove it. Numbers and results, however they may be interpreted, must have a testable benchmark for proper evaluation, as in the results from my bear load above. For example: When some Internet “cowboy” claims to have killed dozens of elk with his 6.5 Creedmoor and therefore nothing more is needed, we should ask these questions of self and/or the claimant: What were the specific ranges, weights and sex. There are elk bulls that could weigh 800 lbs and other young bulls that might only weigh 1/2 of that or less still. Then ranges could vary from, say 50 yds to 500! Also the physical conditions. Then, how many were shot from pre-arranged steady rests and how many from offhand under difficult physical conditions such as in mountain hunting? And so on. . . . . . .

I recall a benchmark being given for the clean kill of a brown bear many years ago as 3900 ft-lbs at the muzzle of a rifle. Of course, brown bears are not usually shot at the muzzle – hopefully! – but usually at a minimum of 25 yds to a maximum of around 200 yds. Therefore, that benchmark was likely intended as a generalization of how far from the shooter the average brown bear is shot and, therefore, 3900 ft-lbs seemed adequate within those parameters. And likely that was in consideration of a “suitable load” from a .338 Win Mag. And, of course, much was taken for granted outside that 3900 number, such as the actual bullet weight, construction, caliber and placement. Then there is the question of the bear’s maturity: Grizzlies can go to 1000 lbs but most that are harvested are much less than that. A realistic average might be 400 to 600 lbs. In the case of a brown bear, the actual majority taken likely will be less than 1000 lbs. Nonetheless, one should go prepared for a real monster of 1200 to 1400 lbs!

To say that I’m less than impressed with the hype over 130gr – 150gr bullets from a .264-cal at less than 3000 fps for large and potentially dangerous game is probably an understatement, and I’ll present my argument to state why.

I well recall reading a statement by Jack O’Conner that said, “I became cautious after that”. After what? He was discussing rifles and loads for grizzly/brown bear, and in the context of a .270 Winchester. He never went into details of what happened, but the fact that he’d successfully used his pet .270 Win on grizzle/brown bear in the past, but on the occasion that caused him to be cautious with a .270 in such a context, he in essence was admitting that the .277- cal was not the best choice for some situations that didn’t neatly fit the circumstances of his previous successes involving dangerous bruins.

FIRSTLY: The rate-of-twist of a rifle’s barrel has historically been chosen to stabilize suitable bullets for specific tasks in game hunting. For example: The honorable military cartridge of 1903 – 06, universally known as the .30-06 Springfield in sporters, has traditionally had a 1 in 10″ twist rate. For most bullet weights that works adequately for 125s to 220s. That has perhaps made the .30-06 the best known and useful rifle/cartridge since it became commercially available world-wide for general big game hunting. Of course, on the upper side it has now to compete with .300 mags, and on the lower end the ubiquitous .308 Winchester. But I don’t see a majority of .30-06 owners ditching them in favour of one of the others. They may purchase one or more of the .30-06 competitors, but still cling to their -06, that’s my take anyway.

So what does a 6.5 Creedmoor offer over the ole .30-06? A very good question!

According to NOSLER 9 reloading guide:

The 6.5 Creedmoor from a 24″, and a 150gr ABLR at 2725 fps makes 2473 ft-lbs at the muzzle. BC = .634; SD = .307

The .30-06 from a 24″, and a 210gr ABLR at 2652 fps makes 3279 ft-lbs at the muzzle. BC = .661; SD = .316

The so-called “advantage” of the 6.5 C is less recoil and just as effective on deer-size game to ~500 yds. Such a claim has to be backed up by results, and apparently it has in the hands of expert shooters.

Note 1: I’m far from certain how many deer hunters actually hunt deer where they could be shot at 500+ yards, but my longest shot on a 400 lb buck was at 153 yds, and that resulted in a lost buck because of that particular Nosler BT 165gr (from my .30-06) that broke up on a shoulder hit! It was finally claimed by other hunters across a swamp on another property. How far away was that? Probably 350 yds. In approximately 70 years of hunting, and having lived and hunted in four Canadian provinces on the east end of Canada, the only place I’ve hunted where a shot could have been taken on a whitetail at 500 yds was the far north of Ontario, our home province since 1975. And no way would I ever think of pursuing white-tailed deer at 1600 klms from home base! Though I did shoot a moose there – that’s a different subject.

< I never saw a deer track here, though moose were travelling over this mountain. On the far side was a sheer cliff drop-off, straight down. We were in Ontario’s Far North, 1000 miles from home – still in Ontario.

But here are the results from those 2 rifle crtridges at 500 yds:

the 6.5 Creed at 500 yds = 2060 fps/1413 ft-lbs

the .30-06 Springfield at 500 yds = 2023 fps/1907 ft-lbs

• So the actual gap in velocity between the “Creed” firing a 150gr and the .30-06 the 210gr has shrunk from an initial 73 fps to 37 fps at 500 yds. And the energy gap between the 6.5 Creed at MV to 500 yds is 57% energy retained, or 43% lost. For the .30-06 it is 58% retained or 42% lost.

Note 2: True, on “deer- size” game the 6.5 Creedmoor should be as effective, and with less recoil. Since the majority of medium-size game hunting in North America involves whitetails, a .30-06 is not needed for game less that about 400 lbs. My calculations are that 1413 ft-lbs from a 150gr/.264″, with mono bullets placed “right” should qualify for live non-dangerous game to around 500 lbs. That might include some elk.

“might” implies under ideal conditions. But there’s the rub! How many qualify for such a shot, and under what conditions? A test was shown on YouTube where the promoter invited select shooters using their expensive target rifles, and a stand-up rest, to hit the vital area of a simulated deer within an 8″ circle representing the heart area at 500 yards. Of the eight or so shooters only one managed to place the shot within that circle, and that was after given a second attempt. Keep in mind that conditions were far from actual hunting conditions: the “deer” wasn’t moving, some steady cross wind of less than 10 mph, very expensive target-quality rifles and carefully fabricated precision handloads were used by “experts”. The loads chosen by the individual shooters were prime for their “target” rifles – suitable for deer-size game.

Note 3: We also need to consider that the closer the animal is to the shooter, both precision shooting and bullet energy increase significantly. There’s little doubt, therefore, that the 6.5 Creed is more than adequate for the largest of whitetails when aimed correctly and using a good bullet. But the distinction between the two candidate cartridges diverge rather dramatically the closer the game is to their muzzles. I think that the Swedes have proven their 6.5 x 55s can bring down certain moose with precision shooting and ranges that are not extended. But they have traditionally used their long RN 156 or 160s with high sectional densities of .328! And experience has long proven their penetration abilities.

But regarding those extra “long range” missiles in a 6.5 or a .30-06: “Caution” should be the watchword! For instance, at 200 yards the 30-06/210gr is still hitting at over 2300 fps. Since that bullet is an ABLR, its nose is more frangeble and hence more prone to rapid overexpansion hindering penetration. The same being true for the 6.5 ABLR which has even higher impact velocity. So those ABLRs that are so impressive at long range may actually “fragment” or over-expand at usual hunting ranges for whatever game is being pursued. I’d not test them on mature moose, elk or bears inside 250 yards where most medium – large game are actually shot.

This is quite typical of my hunting area for the last four decades. I was seated in that chair because in front of me was a ground blind for bear hunting. It’s on a ridge about a hundred yards or so from a main highway. Actually, I was deer hunting with my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 loaded with the 300gr Barnes TSX at +2600 fps. The location is about 2 miles (3.5 km) from my main bear-bait site on the opposite side of the highway, on a side dirt road.

While dedicated shooters of the 6.5s tout the BCs of those bullets being “game changers”, please keep in mind their “intended use”: i.e. shooting game at unusually long ranges! When using Nosler’s own Partition bullets, for example, or the Barnes TSX or TTSX’s, most cartridges excel where 90% of game are actually shot.

Killed a good bear with one of these from a single-shot NEF .45-70.

< My first bear with this from my first 1895 Marlin: a 400gr Speer at 1865 fps. Range was 100 yds.

So that’s my beef with toting those high ballistic coefficient numbers – they’re mostly impractical in the real world. In spite of that truth, a serious number (if one believes the Internet) use them for extra – “long-range” work, not only on whitetails, but elk to unseemly ranges of 700 plus yards!

Of course, there are 6.5s like the Creedmoor and then there are these: 6.5-284 Norma and 6.5 PRC. Of course, the .264 Win Mag is still offered by Winchester (or whoever owns that brand), as well as the 6.5 Rem Mag and .260 Rem.

All of a sudden, the .264s have been rediscovered! I’ve owned none of them except the 6.5 x 55 Swede in a very nice Sako – mainly for varmints. The bullets are not wide enough or heavy enough for thick timber and bush conditions – I found that out the hard way! So I moved on to large bores and magnums with adequate velocities for big game like moose and bear. And no harm was experienced in using them on lesser game as well.

I quit whitetail deer hunting some time ago due to the aforementioned physical conditions that prevail on Crown Land with too many hunters, and with some hunters using hounds. I’ve had a few invites on private property using a shotgun but it was obvious that the land owner and family/friends had priorities. In some of those cases they wanted the killing of bears however. . . “all of ’em!”

So I focused on larger game and predators. Still do.

A lot of moose and bears have been harvested using a .30-30. Of course that was back-in-the-day! And little mention is made of how many were lost after wounding.

I know a man, who is a friend of our two oldest sons, who went on a moose hunt in the north of our province several years ago, and took the “family rifle” that his dad used in defence of his apiary against bears . It was a .30-30. After emptying the rifle on a moose (unsure if it was a cow or bull) and reloading it he managed to get the moose on the ground with lots of holes that spued red liquid. He harvested a moose with a .30-30! Yippee!

With good reason most don’t try that today! We live in better times economically, and with better sense.

Ballistics of a 20″ Winchester M94 in .30-30 (handloads) firing a 170gr FP at 2200 fps (max) BC =.189/SD = .256. A bull moose at 100 yds and weighing 1100 lbs, quartering away and on the move, walking, and in 10 seconds will be entering thick bush. . . The hunter raises his M94, takes aim and fires, what could we expect under those conditions? That bullet is good enough at that MV so as not to worry too much about complete fragmentation unless heavy bone is hit.

At 100 yds the 170gr/.308 -cal will (according to Hornady) be making about 1790 fps/1210 ft-lbs. Hornady recommends that bullet for “medium game” which excludes moose, elk and bear. It’s a deer hunting rifle at best even at relatively close ranges. I give it a rating of 23 TE at 100 yds under ideal conditions. A quartering angle going away is not good – broadside would be much better – and especialy if the moose was standing still. Multiple shots into the lungs, or a heart-lung shot would make a very sick moose,

< Not my moose, but very similar to an experience I had back in 1994 – 1995. I was watching a bear bait in a remote part of our province, and Norm Easto was my guide/outfitter. A bull moose like that showed up behind me at about that distance. I stood, facing him with my 1895 Marlin, and shouted “Get out of here!”. It was spring, not during the fall moose-hunt season. But he had a full rack and left though rather grumpy! I never flinched as I raised my rifle and pointed it at him!

Our oldest son’s FIL has killed many moose (not all mature bulls) including calves and cows, with a .30-30. But he lived where the moose lived, knew where they were and placed shots correctly. Yes the .30-30 can kill a moose under particular circumstances and in the hands of an experienced and confident hunter who understands it’s limits. The 23 TE that I give it within 100 yds using a properly constructed bullet in good hands implies a clean hit in the vitals. But a quartering away shot on a moose that will quickly disappear in thick bush rates a 1/2 of 23 or about 12.5 x 18.5 = 231 lbs. 12.5 represents less than an optimum angle (a full on broadside within range rates a 25) and 18.5 less than a perfect shot given the other conditions of a “rushed shot” and without a rest for the rifle. Such a shot would likely be effective on most deer, and some small bears, but not the largest “deer” (moose) or bears.

I carried my .375 H&H for bear last year because he was dominant for the area and weighed 500+ lbs. And ideal conditions weren’t possible given the terrain, and the bear was on the move when I finally saw him for about 20 seconds. But I would have fired at 20 -25 yds with crosshairs on him if I’d wanted a trophy or 500+lb bear for whatever serious reason – which I didn’t. But I felt ample protection from that .375 H&H (300gr SBT at 2674 fps/4762 ft-lbs). At 25 yds the 300gr would still be making over 2600 fps, but the angle would have been less than good on a mobile bear! Yet a 300gr at +2600 fps would have done him no good even from a high-angle shot. That’s why I choose “more than enough” for ideal conditions – because they might turn out to be far less than ideal! If I’d let that bear see me (he did smell me) what would his response have been? I didn’t know and didn’t want to find out because I might have had to shoot him, so I left the scene. Nonetheless, I was happy for my choice of the .375 H&H. After all, the .375 H&H is said to be a “perfect choice” for lion, the largest of which will weigh less than “my bear” of 2024! But some say that a lion is “dangerous game” while a black bear is only “potentially dangerous”. Tell that to the Alaskan 60 year-old man who was recently killed just outside his home by a yearling black bear that weighed 70 lbs! That problem being that he can’t hear what you’r saying because he’s dead!

I’ve discussed some terminal ballistics from 6.5 Creedmoors, .30-06’s, .30-30s and the .375 H&H as perhaps representative of 4 classes of hunting rifles – not in any particular order. But if I did, they’d be this: .30-30, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30-06 and .375 H&H. Also rifle philosophy of some others in our post-modern era along with my own. It comes down to our perspectives, experiences, needs and analyses of raw physical data and real results. It’s not a situation of the same shoe fitting all comfortably! There are too many variables, including who you are and who I am.

Take care and be safe out there!

Till the next. . . . . The issue of recoil was briefly alluded to in this piece, with no specifics given. But I think it would be understood that of the 4 rifles: .30-30, 6.5C, .30-06 and .375 H&H, the .30-30 would have the least and the .375 H&H the most. So in our next presentation I’ll go into more detail of why that’s so, and how to deal with it.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why is the .458 Winchester Magnum MIA?

In watching a recent YouTube video related to hunting African DG, the host was promoting the .375 H&H as the best overall choice for a first-timer on Safari where both PG and DG were on the menu. There was nothing especially novel about such advise as it basically followed a script from the past century. And the venerable .375 H&H has only improved over the subsequent decades and done nothing since to disuade such a sound recommendation. But he didn’t rest his case there, but went on to highlight that the .375 H&H is still being effectively used by veterans of the safari game – even to the demise of elephants. Then he suggested the usual pluses for its continued use on such game:

< The late Dr Don Heath (aka “Ganyana”) using his 9.3 x 62 on a charging elephant!

• A continued supply of good factory ammo – that has even improved in recent times.

• Adequate for the most dangerous in the hands of careful shooters.

• Ideal for the largest PG, and will do a good job on both small and medium game.

• Perhaps its best attribute being relatively mild recoil.

BUT!

According to him, there is a better choice if the shooter is advanced and can handle the recoil! That being a .416 Remington, Rigby or Ruger. He said that while the .375 H&H has effectively killed more Cape Buffalo than all others combined, a .416 makes a difference in bullet impact that’s clearly visible to the shooter! And then he went on to make that case.

Later, as I was scrolling the Internet for more data on the most popular rifles and cartridges for dangerous game hunting, I came across another video where the host (never saw him previously or recognized his name) gave his recommendations for different DG species, starting with the usual and proceeding to the end (again I don’t recall all his recommendations). BUT, I couldn’t help noticing that the .458 Winchester Magnum wasn’t on his list! Duh!

Who’s at fault there?

Well, I think we have to start with the usual suspects. . . . . The MEDIA! In this case the Sporting media! And more specifically still: The hunting & shooting media! And who writes their articles? Paid gunwriters, of which they have never been numerous at any given time! And they write about their hunts and guns used, as well as their own personal hunting rifles.

Let’s face it – we as hunter-shooters are a relatively small group, and a diminishing one at that. And the number of well-known writers who have been consistent in promoting the .458 Winchester Magnum are miniscule! The best known – who rarely writes anymore – is Phil Shoemaker a master guide and pilot up in Alaska. Other than that a piece shows up once in a blue moon in “the media”, that is usually full of subjective views, historical and current errors, and personal bias. Today, all the hype is about the latest bullets and their zip codes, and the speciality rifles that shoot them that mimic themes of bygone days like a super .257 Roberts or 6.5 x 55 Swede.

< Phil Shoemaker and his famed .458 Win Mag (“ole ugly”) and results from a 500gr DGX to the brain of this dugga boy!

Fifteen to twenty years ago, Big Bores was the hot topic. Just consider Hornady’s run of producing bullets, cases and ammo for the likes of: the 450/400 NE 3″, 416 RIGBY, 404 JEFFERY and 470 NE in addition to the other usual current big-bore products, such as for the more recent .416s and traditional .458 Win and Lott. Today, it’s small bores! That is in the media and sales. Today it’s about “platforms” and “chaises” that will send a svelte 140gr at 2900 fps down range to 350yds – 700 yds at 1/2 to 1/4 moa. To me, that’s informal or formal target shooting. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but to equate that with elk or moose hunting to 600 or 800 yds is the dream of fools!

Today, it’s about sales to a much younger generation that can only dream of an African safari. Who knows what the future holds for hunting or even shooting?

In the meantime, the immediate future bodes well for the distinguished .458 Winchester Magnum, as a sort of revival is currently under way, if the interest in the ~300 pages on the topic: “The Great .458 Winchester Magnum. . . .” on the http://www.24hrcampfire.com is any indication. As well, my own blog writing sees increasing interest on themes related to the wonderful .458 Winchester Magnum. For the past several months it has been the number one topic of interest in my varied posts.

And, of course, there are reasons for that:

1) For some the prospect of a Dangerous Game hunt in Alaska or Africa is a current reality. It’s not a far-off dream. Aside from a .375 H&H (which is a medium), a true big-bore rifle has appeal and makes sense.

2) There’s something “manly” about using such a rifle in a real hunt. Current society tends to downplay “manliness” and strongly implies that men should think, speak and act more “gentle”, like gentlemen, than a more robust persona like a hockey defenceman or NFL Lineman. Frankly, some of us real MEN rebel against trying to force us into such societal molds! Some of us want big trucks, fast cars and motorcycles, and the biggest and baddest rifle we can afford and tote whether we ever see Africa or not, or can afford a Corvette or not!

I’ve always liked power, in guns, motors or motorcycles, even though I couldn’t afford them! It doesn’t hurt if you have it, but it might if you don’t! Sure, you could kill a brown bear using a .223 Remington – particularly if you’re using an M16 platform with multiple shots from a 10 or 20 round magazine! You could – but nobody does! Why? Because there are better tools.

< My former CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum.

When our range opened to the use of semi-auto platforms, a lot of Chinese began showing up with military-style rifles and let-er-rip with hot brass flying every where! Not any more! Why? Because it spoiled the fun of everyone else – and that word got to the president and board. Sanity has returned!

Some just want to shoot paper targets informally. Others are more perfectionists who want to measure and qualify results from their fine-tuned equipment and handloads. Still others are like me: The need to develop good loads from hunting rifles, and for hunting purposes.

Only a small handful of those I’ve met at the range ever went on safari to Africa. I’m not sure that any member at the range ever owned a .458 Winchester Magnum other than myself during and since the time of my joining back in 1989. One gentleman that I’ve met at the range on several occasions has a .375 H&H and has made at least a few trips to Africa on safari. The vast majority of members that hunt larger game do so within the province for moose. So my .458 draws some attention and comments at the range, as well as questions about handloads. On the other hand, a significant number (not a majority by any stretch) are familiar with .45-70s and several have owned and made handloads for them. And a few have purchased my handloading journals on the .45-70.

And I owned one like this except it had those infamous ports that made it way too loud, so I sent it away!

Sometimes we get shooters/hunters there for practice for a significant upcoming hunt. Then they disappear and never show up again until the next year – and perhaps are never seen again. One such man was headed for Africa and brought his Weatherby MK V in .460 Wby Magnum. All his loads were factory and he only fired about a half- box. I asked for one of the empty brass cases and he gladly offered it to me. When I owned my CZ 550, I had serious thoughts of having my gunsmith Eddy VonAtzigen rechamber it to a .460 Wby Mag. Then I gave myself a reality check that ended such a dumb idea!

There is a fellow Canadian who writes special articles from time to time for SPORTS AFIELD. One such piece was on the .458 Winchester Magnum. Somehow he found out that I was writing – or had written a handloading manual on that great rifle cartridge, and contacted me for some practical help in making some mock ups for photography in his proposed article. He no longer owned a .458 but had used one extensively in Africa and was a fan. From time to time we keep in contact and his article in SPORTS AFIELD was a masterpiece, even though I was unable to help at the time due to surgery at a hospital. He still managed to find what he needed for photo support. He’ a great guy, living with wife and family in game rich northern British Columbia. So he is another gunwriter who strongly supports a .458 Winchester Magnum for northern game like moose, bears and elk, as well as in Alaska and the African scene.

< A friend’s elk in N. Alberta.

Let’s all give a hand in bringing back the Great .458 Winchester Magnum so it’ll no longer be MIA. There’s little doubt that the hunter/shooter accomplishing not only his part, but that of a mammoth contribution, is none other than Dr Ronald Berry aka “Riflecrank”. Google: http://www.24hrcampfire.com Please go there for an encyclopedic education on “The Great .458 Winchester Magnum. . .” under the “Express Rifles and Big Bores only” of “hunting and shooting” .

Till the next. . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

When Things Come Together!

We shout “YES!”, pump a fist in the air and stand on one leg! It’s a great feeling!

After months of planning, hard work, trial and error, when finally it all comes together and even exceeds our expectations, it’s crowned by a feeling of eleation and a sense of unbelievable accomplishment that was worth it all! At times we had our doubts, but now the belief and dream has been crowned with success!

What am I talking about? Rifles and handloads. . . . Specifically, in my case, that a 22″ barrelled .35 Whelen could match a .338 Winchester Magnum, burning less powder, and with less recoil, in an equal barrel length.

It was a case (pun appropriate) of better propellants being available, and using them. I’ve always believed in the .35 Whelen from the time it was introduced to me by some gunwriter – can’t say for sure who it was but it made a lot of sense. It’s geometry, physics and history spelled a complete package for someone like myself looking for above average results without extreme anything. The .35 Whelen has it!

It has history – it doesn’t need to prove anything. 4000 ft-lbs from a cartridge case originally designed to produce 3000 ft-lbs in its original form. The blueprint included barrel length, bore diameter, gun powder efficiency, bullet weights and psi. As I said: it had the right genesis in a bore of .358″, the right case capacity, ample bullet weights but lacked the right propellants. The most efficient propellants would fill the case to the bottom of the bullet, and perhaps then some, without excessive PSI. And there again, few, if any user, knew what that was – including Remington though they had it made legitimate at SAAMI! Even the “gun writers” assumed it to be the same as for the .30-06 at 60,000 psi. . . or was it 50,000 cup? Whatever that was in actual PSI, not even the head “ballisticians” who made loads for their own manuals seemed aware, and went by what “seemed good enough”. Little wonder that few handloaders saw it as much – if any – improvement over its daddy!

It also lacked the right promotion, stuck with the image of a deer cartridge firing 200gr bullets at 2675 fps. It’s parent could do that! RL-15, after introduction, came close to being the answer, but a full case under a 250gr caused loose primers and short-lived cases, if not a bunch of depression for those who tried to make RL-15 what it wasn’t! Then others stayed on the safe side of the barrier using old faithfuls like IMR 4064 and 4895, etc. And stuck they were with less than 60 grs of unsuitable propellants under 250 grainers that were expected to be the answer against larger beasts like moose and big bears.

<From the Net.

But Remington itself, having little faith in the cartridge’s ability to drive a 250gr safely past 2400 fps, gave it a round nose to only exacerbate matters for those who had stronger images for the rifle/cartridge than only 200 ft-lbs greater energy than it’s parent, the .30-06. Theory, based on physics, offered more than practice.

So Remington, other than introducing it to SAAMI, wasn’t it’s saviour! But handloaders were! They kept the faith and tried every new propellant and bullet that showed promise. Those who had dreams for larger game, and even dangerous, pushed 250s from 24″ barrels at 2500 fps, and that improved matters by 50 yds or so, but the general opinion was that the .35 Whelen was quickly becoming outdated and passe’ by newer rifles and cartridges that had the “M” moniker and used more powder. Remington’s SAAMI introduction gave it a boost that was relatively short lived but it did “get it out there”, whereas in day’s of yore it’s glory was tied to a relatively small group of insiders.

But in more recent times, SPEER gave it a significant boost into the “magnum class” with the introduction of their No.14 manual. In it, Speer showed MVs for their 250s in the 2700 fps range from newer powders. That became a hot topic on the Net as the word spread.

More recently (last 3 years) I’ve been using CFE-223 under the 225gr Nosler AccuBond in my 22″ Traditions for ~2840 fps/4029 fps for bear over bait. And I’ve vowed to give it a try under 250 grainers; both Hornady SPs and Partitions. In having been to the range over the past week (Mon. July 21/25), I have some good news to report: I loaded two of each: 250gr Hornady SPs and 250gr Nosler Partitions. They each got the same dose of 65 grs of CFE-223. (SPEER’s manual and online data shows a maximum of 64.1 grs of CFE 223 in Federal cases as max under their 250gr SP for 2664 fps. No data is given on PSI or barrel length, but COL is 3.34″ which is standard. Primers were Fed 210. My COL is 3.45″ for the Hornady 250 SP and 3.40″ for the 250 Nosler Partition.)

.35 Whelen (used Remington) cases.

bullet: 250gr Hornady (2)

bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition (2)

primers: WLRM

COL: Hornady 250gr loads @ 3.45″

COL: Nosler 250gr Partition loads @ 3.40″

Powder: CFE-223 (65 grs in each case)

Results for Hornady: 2643.9 fps and 2641 fps. (extreme spread = 2.9 fps.)

Results for Noslers: 2709.2 fps and 2709.8 fps. (extreme spread = 0.6 fps)

• From past experiences, I fully expected the Partitions to be faster than the Hornadys.

• Both showed good accuracy potential.

• I’m especially pleased with the 250gr Partition results.

• I’ll likely load the Hornadys for practice and, after sighting adjustment, will load about 10 of the 250gr Partitions for hunting (especially for walking-about in bear country).

• Recoil: comes out around 35 ft-lbs with the ports – similar to a .300 Win Mag.

Then the other good news is from my .458 Win Mag tests of a 400gr at ~2200 fps. This was my second attempt to attain that goal with a consistent load.

Bullets fired were all 400gr SPEERS – two of each load of 3 loads:

>62 grs of RL-7: 2025.6 fps and 1988.5 fps

>63 grs of H4198: 2257.4 fps and 2262 fps

>69 grs of H322: 2198 fps and 2257 fps

• From the above, it’s evident that good old H4198 comes through again as the best powder in both .45-70s and .458s for mid-weight bullets and medium-high velocities. So I have my load for the 400gr Colorado Customs in the Ruger No.1H .458 Win Mag. And it’s an accurate load using those Speers which, I hope, will translate into both similar accuracy and MVs by those old 400gr CCs.
• < Six 400gr Speers from three distinct loads at 50 yds.

• That will be my bear load this September through to the last week of October – unless I shoot a 150 lb bear before that. If that big 500 lb dominant one shows up again, I’ll let him sniff the muzzle and that should send him into early hibernation.

Till the next. . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Ballistic Realities – P1

The rifle that captured my imagination for hunting purposes at age 13 was my oldest brother’s new Marlin in .30-30. He was 19 and earning his own money. I was like “WOW”! Interestingly, 76 years later I’ve never owned a .30-30 of any make or model, but have owned four 1895 Marlins in .45-70 – basically the same rifle beefed-up a bit.

Prior to owning my first 1895 Marlin in .45-70, I thought a Sako FS in .338 Win Mag was “the cat’s meow”. This is identical to mine that was new in 1989! This one was just recently sold at EPPS. It looks pristine! Probably was kept by somebody as a “Safe Queen” who deceased or got old like me. Mine, new, was under 1k, and I’d traded a new Win 70 in .300 Win Mag for it plus some change (This one sold for $1499). Through multiple handloads, it became my favorite rifle for some time until the stock fell apart where you see the forearm strap (It had a two piece stock and a 20″ barrel).Then the nose cap came off when shooting at the range. That was held on by a very short wood screw through the metal at the bottom and into the forend wood. I then had a fiberglass stock put on that cracked under recoil. Tired of the problems with stocks, it got traded for a nearly new Win 70 in .375 H&H, plus a hundred bucks.

After all, on paper it looked perfect for the “giant” moose I’d hoped to snag with it. Well, in reality it probably was. But before I could catch up with a bull moose with said .338 Win Mag in hand, for reasons not fully rationalized I bought a lever-action Marlin for my first-ever bear hunt in a remote area under the supervision of “The Bear Man”, as the late Norm Easto was then known.

By then, in 1989, I was well into the study and application of ballistics through multiple big game rifles. KE numbers were important in assessing a rifle’s potential, but I also knew that a bullet’s momentum, bore diameter and sectional density (SD), as well as bullet construction and placement, were all critical elements in terminal effect (TE). “Terminal” means at impact, not at the muzzle.

In addition to a few reports by some well-known hunter- authors (Keith and Wootters), results from my handloads and calculations strongly suggested that a 400gr at 1865 fps from the muzzle of my Marlin’s 22″ barrel would at least be as effective, and perhaps more so, on a big bear at realistic hunting ranges as my Sako .338 Win Mag would have been.

Of course, the fruit of that hunt, plus several others using 1895 Marlins, have amply confirmed that initial conviction, and then some! Not only so, but the reality of hunting in the eastern half of Canada over the past 70 years has proven that nothing more than my handloaded .45-70s has ever been needed – with one exception: The “near north” and Far North of our province for a bull moose. Potential ranges could challenge the shooter’s ability to make a clean and proper hit even when using a .340 Weatherby Magnum – which was my final choice for that expansive, unhospitable region for any life other than moose and their four-legged predators.

I’ve chosen the above statement very, very carefully! With the best handloads in an 1895 Marlin chambered to .45-70, it’s more than capable for a bull moose to 300 yards! No, I didn’t make a mistake in that number! Not only so, but the single-shot Ruger No.1 in my former .45-70 LT (with the improved throat) would have been capable for that same bull at plus 400 yards! And no, I didn’t make a mistake in that number either!

Since kinetic energy + momentum + caliber are ALL factors at impact (yeah, construction and placement too); let’s look at some numbers (and comparative results):

Bullets: (they matter!) – diameter, profile, weight and construction.

Some of Nosler’s finest. I’ve used both on bear and they performed excellently from my TIKKA T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62.

Muzzle velocity (MV): is most often cited in reference to a rifle’s “power”. While it is very significant, yet, standing alone, it fails to account for several other vital variables such as those mentioned above and following.

Impact velocity: all else equal, impact velocity determines effect. Assuming “a proper hit”, there is a difference in effect between a 210gr/.338-cal Partition impacting at 2000 fps or at 2400 fps, whether due to differences in range or MV. How that difference is quantified may be disputed, but it’s real unless physics doesn’t count. And if physics don’t count then use a .22LR for everything, as one suggestion.

Weight: a bullet’s weight is a critical factor in impact velocity.

Caliber: is a major factor in bullet weight. If a small caliber like a .223″, then bullet weight is restricted to less than 100 grs. If a large caliber like a .458″, then the upper limit is about 600 grs.

Cartridge: determines ultimate effect depending on bore size, capacity, barrel length, COL and powder used.

These were all loads for my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. The long “free bore” of the single-shot allowed all of those (L to R: 330 Barnes Banded, 350 Speer Mag Tip, 350 TSX and 2x 480 DGX) to be seated to the same depth, permitting an equal amount of powder to be used for each. Of course the same powder wasn’t used in all, but two sufficed: H4198 and H335. Through some innovation and various trials, the .45-70 cartridge is much more capable than it’s generally given credit for in write-ups and manuals. The loads represented here came very close to standard .458 Win Mag loads.

Sectional density: is the ratio of the bullet’s weight to its diameter.

Rate of twist: its major function is to stabilize the bullet from the muzzle to termination.

Bullet construction: determines their performance at impact. Nosler Partitions. They each performed as desired and expected. The two dark ones were 250gr/.338s from a bull moose, and the larger one was a 286gr/9.3 from a black bear. They each retained over 70% of their initial weights.

Ballistic coefficient (BC): determines rate of regression from muzzle to impact.

Those are the basic fundamentals of a rifle’s ballistics. But a rifle has no ballistics until a bullet is fired from it. And the bullet’s weight, caliber, construction and impact velocity (at whatever range) determine a rifle’s effective ballistics from that particular bullet, and nothing else!

Ballistics: ” The science dealing with the motion and impact of projectiles, such as bullets . . . ” – The NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE (Second College Edition).

Ballistics: “The science that studies the behaviour of projectiles in motion.” – Hornady

Then there are also “Interior Ballistics” that concerns itself with what happens inside the rifle from ignition to the departure of the bullet from the muzzle, which is not our primary concern at the moment. We are here dealing with TERMINAL BALLISTICS at impact, NOT what is happening inside the rifle’s barrel; thought that also has a measurable effect on impact velocity of the projectile.

We often substitute muzzle velocity (MV) for what has happened since ignition, but it’s rather an effect of internal ballistics rather than a cause of terminals. It’s measuring the effect of PSI from ignition for about 20 to 24 inches (depending on length of barrel and other factors), and includes several physical realities, such as caliber, bullet construction and weight, burning rate and amount of powder used, plus some other factors beyond the scope of this particular series on “Ballistic Realities” from muzzle to impact velocity – that I refer to as: Terminal Effect (TE).

Ergo: The above highlighted list of factors that determine ultimate “ballistic realities” at termination will fill the clauses, sentences and paragraphs (and photos) to follow for however long it takes for me to be done with this subject.

Till next time: P2

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

BULLETS for Big Guns – P2

As from both a general observation and statistics, we know that those who make bullets for factory ammo and handloaders focus mostly on sub-medium and small-bore bullets due to a simple fact: that’s where most of the demand for such products come from – deer hunters, varmint shooters and informal/formal target shooters and “plinkers”. That’s at least 90% of the market. However, a significant number of such shooters also shoot mediums and large bores, and expect bullets and ammo to be as readily available for those as for what is most common for “standard” cartridges like .223s, 7mms, .308s, etc.

The smaller “gang” that I write for fits somewhere in that 10%. But, again, that’s not to say they have little interest in the “smaller stuff”. And that “smaller gang” is growing significantly, if the increase in my readership is any indication.

Of course, when somebody turns to “Big Bore Rifles” readings or information, they expect something of that genre, or related thereto, to be presented. Hence: “Bullets for Big Guns” of which the current is Part 2 (P2). So . . . . Moving on from P1, we continue with more of the same. . . . or similar stuff!

Testing bullets for large and dangerous game – P2

There’s a place in my world where I’ve done about 75% of my hunting since 1980. It’s official name is Haliburton Highlands in Ontario, Canada. Under somewhat “normal” conditions, it takes between 60 and 75 minutes driving time from home to its closest entrance. From there one could roam over driveable roads for hours with only impressions of what could be discovered off road. There are inumerable dirt trails, as well as some dirt roads granting access to Crown Land, more or less equivalent to “Public Land” in the USA. In the Haliburton Highlands I hunt Crown Land, most of which is undeveloped wilderness, and that’s where about 60% of my bear hunting adventures have taken place. However, I’m not alone in pursuing black bear in that region. There is at least one professional outfitter who caters to US and other hunters in the same WMU that I’ve traditionally hunted, and we’ve inadvertently run into each other. In fact, last year (2024) he had a bait 2 miles to the west of my setup and another 1 mile to the east from mine, yet I had the biggest, dominant bruin of the region regularly hitting mine.

<The main dirt road into the area I hunt in Haliburton Highlands

Since I know the area quite well, having also hunted deer, moose and wolf in Haliburton Highlands, I’m familiar enough with the terrain to know that most shots on any game will be relatively short, and in mostly nasty conditions. In other words: conditions that allow any animals under pursuit to escape very quickly whether wounded or not. So I go prepared for worst case scenarios, not the best! And even the “best” aren’t good! What I soon discovered was that Big Bores were most effective under such conditions, and Mediums were second best. What I also realized was that my .300 magnums – though I loved the .300 Win Mag – was comparable to driving a Corvette over those dirt roads! No! I needed a rifle or rifles that had “smack-down” right there, not that a .300 mag couldn’t do that, loaded right with a 200 – 220 Partition, but somehow it just didn’t fit the scene (though I did kill a very nice buck there at 35 yds. It didn’t know it was stone-cold-dead before its antlers hung up in a ten-inch maple).

Anyway, medium and big bores return us to suitable bullets, especially for game that can “shoot back”!

Right now, as I type this, our spring bear season is in its third day. Totally different than last year where bears were out-and-about in late March – early April due to an unusual very-early spring. This year, spring has been cold and wet, so I’ve not been in a hurry to get “out there”, but hope to within a week or so. When the “weatherman” suggests better upcoming conditions, I’ll be ready to make the trek to last year’s bear-bait setup. Right now it’s recouping from 3 to 4 feet of snow cover, and already grass is sprouting and bears are scenting and searching for that. They’re not quite ready for travelling far or digesting rough food. They’re still sleepy, but roaming not far from their dens – especially females with young. Males, however, roam farther each day for very sparce edibles, especially grass.

It’s their roaming that concerns me. . . It’s not worrying or fearing, but always aware that I could bump into a female with cubs – which at this stage, under law they are protected. But I’d still have to protect myself under attack! So, this early I’ll likely tote my 12ga. until my bait is being hit by a male bear. If it’s “the big one” of last fall, I’ll only shoot it with my camera. Nevertheless, I don’t trust any bear, so must be appropriately armed!

In light of the foregoing, it will be the .35 Whelen for “walking-about” and the .458 for sitting over a bait.

What bullets and why?

In the .35 Whelen it will be 225s – either the 225 AB at 2840 fps (same as 2 years ago) or the 225 SBT at 2900 fps.

In the .458 my early plans called for either the Federal factory 400gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (TBBC) at 2280 fps or my handload of the 300gr TSX at 2750 fps. The Ruger No.1H in .458 is already sighted-in for those 400gr TBBCs. But, as will be presented at the end of this treatise, my plan now calls for a different 400gr.

I’d planned/hoped for more bullet testing last fall after the deer hunt was finished in Haliburton Highlands, but winter arrived early so I was “snowed out”. Among others, I’d planned for a test of those Federal 400s, as well as the .375s of both the 300 SBT and the 250 TTSX. If we don’t test stuff, or know of testing/hunting results by others, we’re sort of flying blind! It’s not that we can duplicate all hunting results, which is impossible, but in testing bullets in media (I do it in very tough media) I can compare bullets of the same caliber from the same rifle, or from potential competing rifles ( .375 vs .458 as an example) that can provide valuable data as to expected results in hunting creatures for which those particular bullets have been created – whether factory or handloads.

For example:

Here are eight loaded .45-70 cartridges I loaded for testing from my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT – for comparative results. From L to R: 500gr Speer AGS, 480gr Hornady DGX, 500gr Hornady RN Interloc, 400gr Barnes Buster, 330gr Barnes Banded Solid, 350gr Hornady RN, and two 350gr TSXs. Later I’ll share the results, but the point was to test all of them from the same rifle into the same media at the same distance. And all were loaded “warm” not “hot”, except the 3rd from left being the 500gr Hornady that was created before the throat was lengthened in the Ruger No.1 (That was a max load for that rifle before the 500 Hornady could be seated like the two to its left – about 2015 fps. The 500 Speer and 480 Hornady were running +/- 1850 fps. Max was ~ 2200 fps). Distance from rifle muzzle to test media was ~10 feet.< The front of the 1st box. 8 holes from 8 bullets. That was followed by two, 1.75″ soft wood planks, which was backed by the 2nd box of similar media. The first box was 16″ deep followed by 3.5″ of wood, and then 12″ media in the final box = a total of 31.5″ of media composed of dry glossy magazines behind dry hardcover books then two planks followed by another box of dry paper media. That’s a tough media test for any expanding bullet. Of course they were not all “expanding type”. There were 2 Barnes solids and another 2 Barnes expanding monos. Those 4 gave best penetration with the possible exception of the Hornady 480 DGX (non bonded).

I was shooting my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT from offhand on uneaven slippery ground in a form of “snap shooting” as though I were facing an oncoming bear. (Indeed, my bear-bait setup was just above and back of that box about 30 yards. The order of shots are marked on the box that corresponds with the lineup above – with one exception: the 3rd shot became the last (the one in the center of the box). As explained, it actually was the “hotest” at about 2015 fps/4507 ft-lbs. It created an “explosion” inside the box and never made a hole anywhere other than the entrance. The box flipped upside-down and created a lot of confetti inside, and the bullet or fragments thereof were never found, though a careful search was made both inside and outside the box. I can only surmise that somehow it flew out the top that had the flaps folded into one another like you would in toting “stuff”, because they were no longer “folded together”. Yet I couldn’t find the 500 Hornady RN on the ground anywhere in the vicinity of the testing apparatus! A demonstration of sheer energy!

The only bullets retrieved in the media were these (All others passed through, or otherwise were lost.):

<L to R: 500gr Speer AGS, 350gr Hornady RN and 350gr TSX found against the last panel of the final box. The other 350 TSX veered off hitting the edge of the planks and was lost in the background until the next summer when Ken (at times one of my partners) assisted in finding it using a metal dector.

<On the right is the 350gr TSX in .458″ that was found by the metal detector. It weighs about 350grs, but if it tumbles in glancing off a bone it will fail in performance as intended – that’s concering to me. I’ve never had much luck with larger caliber TSX’s so far. . . . I’ve got a bunch but yet unsure of their performance, despite their acclamations from others.

Here are the results from more recent tests of .458″ bullets from a similar setup. These were all shot from my Ruger No.1H in .458 Win Mag:

Same location as 3 yrs previous using the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. About 4-inches of fresh snow. The test is a much tougher one with mostly glossy dry magazines and manuals wedged in tightly so as to simulate bone and cartledge. And there is a “witness card” (a plastic folder) at about 4″ from the front of the box to determine expansion at that point.

For 5 bullets: 600gr Barnes, 550gr Woodleigh, 500gr DGX, 450gr Swift AF, and 250gr Hornady MonoFlex. Again, standing in 4″ of fresh snow, shooting offhand from 5 yards (15 ft). Intended order of shooting is marked beside the black 1″ circles: (1) 250gr MonoFlex, (2) 600gr Barnes O, (3) 500gr Hor DGX-Bonded, (4) 550 Woodleigh Weldcore, (5) 450gr Swift AF.

The Ruger No.1H in .458 is 2 lbs heavier than the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LR, and I was standing in very slippery snow so had to adapt my stance to suite those conditions, and I was shooting from offhand without any supports.

Shot no.1> the 250 MonoFlex hit 2″ low because I centered the black circle with the crosshairs that were 1.6″ above bore. At first that didn’t dawn on me, thinking it was due to the slippery conditions.

Shot no.2> the 600gr Barnes O missed the box low at about the same distance of the first shot. Notice no hole there.

Shot no.3> by then I caught on as to what caused the low shots, so I adjusted and bingo! That was the 500gr Hornady DGX.

Shot no.4> the 550gr Woodleigh, and

Shot no.5> the 450gr Swift A-Frame.

The Results: So in all, four shots were tested in that media: the 250 MonoFlex, the 500 Hornady DGX, the 550 Woodleigh, and the 450 AF.

The 4 sitting on my computer, from L to R: 250 Hornady MonoFlex; 450 AF, 500 DGX and 550 Woodleigh. The two broken-off pieces were found near the 550 Woodleigh, so belong to it.

Penetration (in order of depth): 250 MonoFlex = 4″; 550 Woodleigh = 6″; 450 A-Frame = 6.5″ and Hornady 500 DGX = well past 8″ and damage about 12″.

Weight retained %: 250 MonoFlex = 94%; 450 A-Frame = 78%; ; 550 Woodleigh = 66%; and 500 DGX = 62% (Keep in mind how much more it penetrated including more damage to media the father it went.) From the 500 DGX at 10 inches. Notice there’s not even a dent from any others.

The witness card evidence This is the exit side not the entrance, so matters are reverse from from L to R at 4 inches into the media. In this view: Top left is the 500gr DGX; Top right is the 550 Woodleigh; lower left is the 450 AF, and lower center is the 250 MonoFlex.

Some things we learn from this experiment:

• If the game is heavy, tough and dangerous, the Hornady DGX is your best choice of those 4.

• If you need or want to drop anything up to 400 – 450 lbs inside 150 yards, you can’t do it better than a 250gr MonoFlex.

• The 450 Swift would be an excellent choice for most large game in North America, and PG in Africa, but I’d lay off of Cape Buffalo with it and choose the 500 DGX, or if available, maybe the 500gr AF followed up by solids if needed. The Swift expands quickly, and holds its weight very well, but that quick expansion will act as a parachute that will arrest penetration well before it should in particular scenarios. On the other hand the 500 DGX-bonded acts more like a combination of a solid and expanding bullet. And it never deviated from its course.

I have boxes of each and for Cape buff, of the 450 AF, the 550 Woodleigh and the 500 DGX, mine would be the 500 DGX. It will give better penetration on tough angles – of that I entertain no doubts. Though, if it were a matter of facing off with a brown bear at close range to, maybe 150 yards, I’d choose the 450 AF without a worry because it will expand well on soft-skinned animals close-up without losing its core, yet still expand well enough at 100 to 200 yards depending on its starting speed.

For elk, moose or large black bears at close to far ranges, I’d choose my .375 H&H because of the bullets I have that give me confidence, namely: the 300 SBT and the 250 TTSX. Really, for the .458, while I’ve a few hundred bullets in .458″, I’ve yet to find one available to me that would give me confidence for a relatively long shot on such game. And I know about the 404gr Stone Hammer, and I’m sure it’s the greatest for that kind of work, but so far nothing of that nature is close to hand where I shop. But I still have a handful of the very reputable 400-X that I’ll keep for morale’s sake. . . . Just for dreaming. . . . that I can get motivated to 2590 fps from the 24″ barrel of my Ruger No.1H. But I can’t recommend it to anyone unless they know of a hidden mine for them. I’d like very much to have a reasoned confidence in Barnes 350 and 300 TSX’s. And I’ve loaded a bunch of the 300s this year as “my bear load”. I once killed a young bear using my former CZ 550 in .458, shooting the 350 TSX at ~2750 fps, but was disappointed in how long that bear lived after the bullet failed to expand. So can I trust the 300 TSX to do a better job at the same speed? I’m dubious. . . . . I’m thinking the TTSX’s are better. but it sure is annoying when spending as much as I have on bullets that fail!

On the other hand, Flat Tip soft points have never failed on bears, whether from .45-70s or .458s. So I’m gonna load up what remains of my stash of those Colorado Custom 400s that was reserved for me by a young man at a “gun store” many years ago. They have a thick 100% copper jacket that partly protects the rounded nose with some lead poking through. They were some of the best tested in .458″ so far. I gave a pic last time:

< The two right here on the corner, to the right of the mashed 400gr Hawk at 6 O’clock. I still have half a handful in a small plastic bag. The young man had reserved the only bag of 50 left in the store for me in my .45-70s – perfect for the single-shot Ruger No.1.

There’s a story behind it all that I probably shared a long time ago: This young man was just a kid when his father was murdered in cold blood by some gangsters who burst into the former gun shop in downtown Oshawa, Ontario. His father was half-owner of the shop. A friend of mine, a retired school principal, and I would visit that shop about once every week. The other partner of the store was from an influential family in the city. His name was Jerry, and most of our business was carried out with him.

But the murder and theft of handguns was carried out in daylight during business hours. Years later, Jerry had the store business moved to a new-better location and expanded. So after my friend deceased I continued to visit this new location alone, and one day going through cash, the son of the murdered father – about a decade later – was working the cash and handed me the small plastic bag of those 400gr “Colorado” bullets in .458″, saying: “I’ve kept these for you!” If for no other reason, I need to honour that son and his father’s memories in using them in my .458 Win – and I’ll do just that this year at about 2150 to 2200 fps during my bear hunt. That should work, having a 0.049″ thick pure copper jacket as well as a pure lead core! And if that works out in the killing of a bear – NOT that monster bear of last year, but a decent 150 lb to 200 lb – I’ll seek him out and let him know (with thanks) about it. If I retrieve that bullet it will be shown to him and given as a gift if he so wishes.

So bullets are also memories and momentoes. They tell a story. . . . . . .

Six of fifty left. I will develop a load using some other 400s, and save these for “that bear”!

Till the next. . . . . Ballistic realities.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

BULLETS for BIG GUNS – P1

Bullets have always held a facination for me from the time I fired my first (and only) pump BB rifle till multiple handloaded .458-caliber projectiles in .45-70s and .458 Winchester Magnums.

Why is that so till this day, when I eagerly open a new box of bullets for any of my Big Guns?

< On the left, 50 300gr TSX in .375-cal, and on the right, 50, 300gr Sierra BT in .375-cal. Note how the TSX box is significantly larger to contain the 300gr TSX’s. Copper is much less dense than lead, in consequence of which all copper bullets of equal weight are much longer than those whose weight is mainly from a lead core in the same caliber. If COL is equal (in my .375 H&H COL is nearly identical) then less room for powder is available when all-copper bullets are employed. The Sierras have a much better BC at .480 so can be useful at significantly longer ranges than the TSX with a rather poor BC of only .357. On moose (up North) I’d choose the Sierra 300gr over the TSX of equal weight. The same for caribou and sheep. What about the 270 LRX? It can be started faster at up to about 2800 fps? Yes, but it has a poorer BC of only .449, less momentum all the way to termination and a relative poor SD of .274 compared to the 300 SBT at .305. Better construction for the all-copper 270? That would be speculative till proven one way or the other. I deal in facts, not speculation or hearsay.

Handloading for me has become la raison d’e’tre for owning multiple rifles, especially in larger bores. To be frank about it, I wanted to know from actual hands-on experience what those rifles were truly capable of from maximum loads at various ranges, and from tests in various media, including performance on game animals. So I rarely use the same bullet in the same rifle for excursions after big and/or dangerous game. For example, in .458-caliber for both .45-70s and .458 Winchester Magnums, I’ve loaded these bullet weights for hunting: 250gr, 300gr, 325gr, 350gr, 400gr, 405gr, 465gr (cast), and 500gr. The 250, 300, 350 and 500 have been tested in media, and two different 350s, and a 400, 405, 465 and 500 have all successfully been used on game.

The plan to do more bullet testing last fall got “snowed out” due to early winter storms. This year (2025) my hope is to do more testing of loads in my .375 H&H, especialy at longer ranges, and the 300 SBT against the 250 TTSX into media. The 300 Sierra at 2675 fps was my bear load in the fall of last year (2024) when that huge bear came within 20 yds and I didn’t shoot it, not because of the bullet, but because it was a solo hunt and I couldn’t deal with a ~500 lb bear without help. Plus the fact of saving and sharing about 250 lbs of bear meat! My initial plan was for a bear of not more than 200 lbs. But I knew a dominant bruin from the area was hitting my bait for two years (because no other bears were coming in, and other animals, large and small had vacated the area. But I continued to bait because I wanted to see that bear and perhaps get some pics. He did show up the last day of the hunt, and walked with a steady, relaxed stride to within 20 yds when I turned and walked away. And my scope was on him from about 35 yds to 20, so no chance to take pics.

Before gaining access to those 300gr Sierras, I’d been loading the 250gr TTSX at 2850 fps. So I want to compare them in media at about 20 yds. I’ve no doubts that either would have worked well enough on that magnificent bruin. Depending on the media used, I’ve little doubt that the 250 TTSX will out-penetrate the 300 Sierra. But media isn’t flesh and bone, and the Sierra may actually dump more energy in the animal than the 250 TTSX.

So, that’s one example of why I’m still in this game! In a few media tests there have been some surprises, as well as by particular bullets used on game.

< This is a 200gr/.35-cal Rem Corlokt bullet that killed a good black bear as it walked under my friend’s treestand. He said: “That bear didn’t move 5 inches!” No, it’s not a Partition or a Barnes “wonder bullet”! But it’s a favorite among Maine’s bear hunters using lever-actions in .35 Rem. MV was about 2100 fps from a handload.

<The spring bear went 270 lbs after field dressing. The rifle a Marlin lever-action carbine. As a fall bear it would have gone over 300 lbs.

Currently, there’s a thread on 24hourcampfire: “wounding mechanics of Barnes bullets”. It’s rather “hot” just now as its purpose is to have some “expert” gunwriter experiences shared, as well as others with credible experience and/or theories. There are lots of each. Some experiences confirm theories while others are contrary.

Just from observations on the above results of that 200gr Corlokt that killed the bear DRT, I’d say that a lot of “theories”, especially from some of today’s wannabes, don’t hold up! Yet, truth be told, many Ol’ timers swore by Rems RN Corelokts! Moose and big bears aplenty were cleanly taken by ’em! So, perhaps we should revisit some older theories that were confirmed by older experiences.

That 200gr RN impacted the bear at ~2100 fps/1958 ft-lbs. It passed through the spine and was found in the lower chest cavity nearly intact and expanded to 2x it’s original diameter. And those component bullets cost pennies compared to any “magic” 200gr .35-cal “premium bullet” of today that would cost at least $2 per shot!

And I had similar experience from a Speer 400gr/.458 on a black bear shot with my 1895 Marlin: <This was found in the offside armpit of the bear. It retained 90.5% (362 grs) of unfired weight! And here’s the bear:

Factory ammo: is very expensive these days. From time to time I check the costs of those most often used in local hunting of small game, varmints, coyote, deer, bear and moose. I do that both online and at our local Canadian Tire Store. Even a common box of 20 in .243 Winchester can vary between $40 on the cheap end to as much as $100 for “premiums”. Yet, in spite of such horrendous costs, the majority of hunters go afield with factory products. The downside of that is little practice time as it becomes too expensive. So the inevitable result is unfamiliarity with both rifle and load. All of which could result in poor marksmanship. Such a trend is compounded by the fact that usually the best bullets are not used. Instead, the cheaper/cheapest end of factory products are chosen due to costs.

Many hunters are not informed as to potential differences in effectiveness, especially on tough-angled shots, between cup-and-core bullets (cheapest to make) and premium bullets (more costly to make) with bonded cores, partitions, or a combination of a solid base integral to walls containing a bonded lead front core, exposed at the nose. Then there are monolithic expanding bullets, etc. These so-called “premiums” can make a difference in tought shots on tough critters. For example: from stern to stem on a quickly departing wounded critter. . . or when heavy bone must be punched to reach vitals.

So that brings us to the logic of making our own:

HANDLOADS: Even with the relatively higher costs than ever for the handloader, it is still much cheaper than factory ammo if much shooting is planned or hoped for. In spite of the current scarcity of some products (certain cases and primers), yet the handloader has never had it so good! The main difficulty being caused by the ongoing war in Ukraine and the constant introduction of new cartridges, often at the expense of components for older favorite cartridges’ reloading components.

Take for example: Some powder companies have had such a demand placed on them to supply gun powder for militaries around the world – due to the ongoing war in Ukraine and elsewhere, plus growing tensions worldwide, that some “favorite” powders have disappeared from the shelves of outdoor stores. And “the industry” is also hard pressed to keep up with primer supplies as everytime the trigger is squeezed on a military firearm (rifle, pistol, or other firearm) a primer has exploded. Let’s consider that. . . .

In our area, until just recently, a single pac of 100 Large Rifle primers could not be found anywhere! And if they could – you’d pay unbelievable prices! This past week, I visited a shop where over the years I done a lot of business. Every time I stopped by there in recent months, I’d ask about LR or LRM primers. Nada! Nothing. But this time they had 5 (that’s FIVE!) packets (100 each) of Rem #9.5. I bought 3 as I thought some poor soul might show up for some primers! The cost? $15 + tax for each pac. And I haven’t used Remington primers, like forever! Well, that’s not exactly true as I did try them way back when I was getting into handloading – something over 40 years ago.

So, otherwise I need nothing. I have brass, powder and bullets for the three rifles I still make handloads for, and, I still have a few hundred of my favorite WLRM primers – if they ever show up again I’ll grab some. The Rems are for backup, or to share with those who have none, like my son, Brent, to whom I gifted the Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 x 62.

What does all that have to do with bullets? Everything! I can’t shoot bullets without primers – can’t test ’em, hunt with ’em or check their accuracy and speed.

Why do all that, you ask? Because I’m a “scientist” who wants to intimately know any game bullet as much as possible before sticking them in some wobegotten beast, that’s why. We do what we gotta do so somebody else won’t blame the government for more than it’s already responsible for – like saving us from ourselves! You know that’s their part and we do ours. Right? Gotcha.

Ahem. . . . where was I goin’ with that, oh yea, t’was about “bullets” and testing them.< Now there’s an unhealthy looking bunch! I’ll not try to shoot those again. Actually, they were all .458-caliber fired into various types of media. Some look like they could take on a Cape buffalo and survive, and others no-so-much! Going clockwise from the top:

500gr Hornady RN – in winter thru a 10″ frozen softwood log and several feet of packed snow.

405 Rem into a bank of sand and mud.

500gr Hornady RN into a wooden test box filled with a mix of mud, gravel and stones. That was a tough beast!

400gr Colorado Custom – tough media mix.

400gr Colorado Custom – tough media mix.

At 6 o’clock a 400gr Hawk.

At 7 o’clock a 400gr Barnes “X”.

At 8 o’clock a 500gr Hornady RN.

At 9 o’clock a 400gr Speer FN from a bear.

At 10 o’clock a 405gr Rem from berm behind target at 100 yds.

At 11 o’clock another 405gr Rem from the sand bank.

<350gr TSXs/.458 from the 100 yd berm behind target.

< Partitions: L to R – two 250gr/.338 from moose. One 286gr (.366) from bear.

< 416s/400grs that tumbled in media. (not mine) These were Hornady 400-grainers from a Ruger No.1 in .416 Rigby. The fellow shooter at our range said the load was for whitetailed deer at a modest 2200 fps. I was shooting my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. They were also Hornady SP RN in 500gr at about the same speed as the No.1 in a Rigby .416 shoooting those 400s. He asked questions about my load and then challenged me to shoot his rifle as he was certain I couldn’t handle the recoil. I agreed if he’d shoot mine afterwards . . . He agreed. So I shot his first: a 400gr at ~ 2200 fps from a Ruger No.1 that weighed ~ 10 lbs = 42 ft-lbs (about). He then shot mine over the Chrony that recorded 2186 fps (corrected to MV = 2200 fps) at 74 ft-lbs recoil. It was almost like he went into trauma! The extreme difference in recoil was because of both the distinction in bullet weights (at about the same velocities) and the weight of the rifles: Mine at 8.3 lbs and his at 10 lbs.

< My former Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. My gunsmith gave it a long throat allowing bullets to be seated “long” granting more space for powder. It was the equal of a .458 Win with a 22″ barrel. It was my favourite rifle for nearly two decades.

After he’d left, I fetched his bullets out of the berm.

And so on . . . . .

More coming soon.

Lesson 1: Don’t go hunting anywhere with ANY bullet without reliable information or knowledge!

Till P2 . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Do You Go with the flow in Rifle Choices?

Some people like being different, but most don’t.

What do I mean? Conforming to styles and culture within a rather small community setting is comfortable and more or less expected. Oh sure, some diverge from the main stream, but nothing viewed as extreme is likely to be applauded even though some are prepared to be thought of as “odd” or outsiders. Yet, in a large city environment, differences may be tolerated even if not liked. Still, within particular urban groups or settings, conformity is somewhat practiced within age groups or cultural settings.

But lets step outside cultural settings of particular ethnicities and religous groupings, and join a shooting club or range where there’s a mix of hunters, shooters, handloaders, bowmen and skeet/trap shooters. Any particular individual might do all five of those activities, but rarely so. Most that I’ve known at the range, where I’ve been a member for nearly 4 decades, have a special interest in one or two of those activities, and three at the most. For example, my attendance at that club is 100% at the rifle range as primarily a hunter and secondly a handloader, and thirdly a shooter. Most in attendance there, especially on week days, have the same interests but possibly in a different order: a handloader, shooter and finally a hunter.

Shooting and testing handloads in my former CZ 550 in .458 Winchester Magnum. They got used in hunting.

The point of all this being that range members accept differences and expect them. I know two men quite well of a group of four (one recently deceased), who meet regularly at our range on early Wednesdays for just having fun in getting together for shooting rifles and drinking coffee in the clubhouse. But the rifles they bring are varied and different. In fact, any one of them might show up on any Wednesday morning with a new or different rifle than they ever previously brought. On man, Mike, is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, now 82 years old and he likes old military arms that includes black powder! He’s one of the two I mentioned above, and of my generation, yet we appreciate different styles of rifles even as handloaders. The other gentleman referred to is somewhat younger, and bought one of my .45-70 reloading manuals many years ago and took his 1895 Marlin on a successful bear hunt as a result. Here I was shooting one of Mike’s smoke poles! Hey, why not, he’s a friend! But that was the first and last time I’ve fired one of those.

The point I’m making is that it’s okay to be different! At our range that’s expected. Another gentleman I’ve known for several years used to show up at the range on Mondays or Tuesdays, like I do to avoid the crowd on weekends. But I never knew he was going on safaris to Africa until recently. He’s a quiet man that sticks to business, not involving himself too much with others. I’ve known for a while that he shoots a .30-06 and a .375 H&H, and he makes handloads for each. Since I’ve been shooting my Zastava 70 in .375 H&H a lot at the range over the past two years, I approached him and asked about his handloads. He then told me about his African trip he’d just returned from, pulling out his IPhone and showing pics of the animals he’d recently shot on safari.

So we make friends of those with similar rifle and hunting interests as well as with others who just like to do something different while having fun and fellowship in their small diverse groups.

I’m writing this because not only have I been a shooting club member for many years, but because I’ve come to appreciate both the differences and similarities of people who just enjoy firearms for their own reasons, while giving room and respect to all for their own reasons.

Simply stated: we don’t need to conform to someone else’s like’s or dislikes, but go with our own while being open to accept others with their differences, or in spite of them.

On the forums, where firearms is the theme, some men will turn on others, whom they don’t know or have never met, with vulgar language and abusiveness because they disagree over some petty points of view. In real life, where we rub shoulders with men in arms, or on safari or a hunt club, we can learn to agree to differences and even become friends.

Some like magnums, some don’t. . . . “Vivre la diffe’rance!”

Let’s avoid all “holier than thou” attitudes! Or, to avoid the religious connotation, the attitude of: “I know it better than you do”. . . . thing.

When and where any open discussion is taking place on religion, politics, firearms or growing grass, dominant personalities will dominate. How often have I seen it in churches where an open membership is discussing changes of any sort, that two or three, or four at the most, will hold the floor and argue amongst themselves while the rest are the gallery.

Dominant people are like dominant bears – they are controlling! And if they can’t, they bite and devour! The rank and file feel threatened to conform – often against their better judgment.

As a living example of where I’m going with this, I had a friend who was a hunting partner in several ventures (not all) for about a decade. He was also a Conservation Officer (CO) with relatively little experience in big game hunting, and about a dozen years my junior. His first experience with me in hunting was bear, which he’d never previously hunted. While he showed respect for me in what I knew about bears and hunting them over bait, he didn’t own a rifle so asked my thoughts on that matter. I don’t exactly recall my suggestions, but the .30-06 was certainly mentioned as he was not a handloader, and there was no end to good factory ammo in .30-06 that would be suitable. I’d started my own handloading career with a couple of .30-06’s.

When he announced to me that he’d opted for a .270 Winchester, I was baffeled because he knew zilch about a .270 Winchester. . . . about as much as I knew about a .221 Remington Fireball!

And the .270 Winchester was about as common in our neck of the woods as a .357 Magnum handgun, which is to say. . . . “What’s that?”

So what happened was that he’d also asked a “professional” whom he’d known, who was a trainer in the use of firearms, as well as a tester of would-be new hunters for licenses to hunt as well as ownership licenses of firearms. This gentleman knew of a private auction coming up that contained a custom .270 Winchester that belonged to a deceased friend.

So, my friend bought the auctioned .270 Winchester knowing nothing about the rifle, and about as much about a .270 Winchester – taking the “professional’s” view as superior to any other – after all, I was an “amateur”! To this day, my friend still owns that rifle – as far as I know, and has killed a couple of bears with it. . . . that is after his first attempt on a huge bear when the rifle refused to fire when he pulled the trigger! That bear took off never to be heard of or seen since.

It has never been handloaded, and I was the first to shoot it at our range for sighting in of Federal Premium 150gr Nosler Partitions. Accuracy was OK but not stellar, and MVs were erratic between 2700 to 2800 fps. My point is: that it’s an OK rifle but nothing special in looks, handling, accuracy or ballistics – just average and certainly nothing special for this neck-of-the-woods.

My friend chose it because of the recommendation of someone who was a “pro”, being an official “pro” himself. His regard for “officialdom” trumped his regard for “amarteurish” experience at ground level, without any serious research on his own.

I’ve owned one .270 Win rifle, a Remington 700 SS as an investment, figuring I could make money on it, as it was a good buy at $400. In the meantime I bought dies, brass and bullets to make and shoot handloads. In my view, I liked it better than my friend’s custom .270 Win. Probably, the fact that I’d made a variety of handloads for it, and it was both handier, lighter and with a synthetic stock had something to do with all that. One fall it did go deer hunting and the action froze in freezing rain! I traded it for full value on a LH BDL Rem in 7 Rem Mag, so the “deal” paid off and that was my first and last .270 Winchester. Am I negative on them? No, not really, but in that class of rifles, I’d choose a .30-06, .308 Winchester, or even a .280 Rem because they can shoot heavier bullets for game larger than whitetails.

My point? I was never locked in to what others had to say about cartridges and rifles. I did my own research, getting to know what and where I’d be hunting, and choices of firearms were based on that – not on Internet or second and third-hand opinions.

In consequence of all that, cartridges like a .270 Winchester has had no place (not for long anyway) in my inventory of hunting rifles. Instead, I’ve gone to Big Bores and Mediums that produce larger holes in flesh and bone, with no questions or doubts over performance if I do my part, even at ranges where the .270 Win supposably excels.

And, as a bonus, any of those can reach out effectively to any reasonable range on the creature being hunted.

That is to 400 – 500 yards in most cases – if really needed to, with no other option. But over the last decade my hunting focus has primarily been predators: bear, wolf and coyote-wolf hybrids, with minimum deer hunting thrown in. For bear, I can use anything I have left for big game. For deer, wolf and wolf-hybrids, my .35 Whelen gets the nod.

But truth be told, if I were to choose just one among all I’ve used and owned, a .300 Winchester Magnum could have, or even now meet the need. Over time, I’ve owned eight .300s, six in the .300 Winchester. A second choice might be a .338 Win Mag.

Why those choices when I don’t currently have either in my locker? Because I have a .35 Whelen that can basically do what they do.

What loads in my single-shot .35 Whelen? Well, currently I have suitable handloads for: the 180gr TTSX (@ 2900 fps), 200gr Hornady SP (@ 3000 fps), 225gr Sierra (@ 2900 fps), 225gr Nosler AB (@ 2840 fps), 250gr Hornady SP (@ 2550 fps), and 310gr Barnes O (@ 2400 fps). I’ve also these bullets: 250gr NP, 225gr “X”, and a few remaining of the 200gr “X” which I killed a bear with many years ago using my Rem 7400 (semi) in .35 Whelen at 2835 fps. Range was 100 yds. Impact velocity about 2584 fps/ 2964 ft-lbs. A going away 1/4 shot into short ribs, exit through offside big shoulder bone about 2″ in diameter – bear went, maybe 7 – 8 yds – no bawling.

<

100 yds from my ground blind up on the ridge this side of the bait barrel. Bear ran uphill, to the right of the barrel, to where the right lower corner of the pic is -about 20 ft, and was dead right there.

Why not my .375 H&H or .458 Win Mag? Both are great for really large and/or dangerous game, or hunting bear from a blind, but for tramping through thick and rough terrain for hours on end they’re about 2 lbs too heavy. I’ve already gone on record several times in stating my .35 Whelen is my “walk-about rifle” – that can reasonably do what a .300 Win or .338 Win could do. True, with sleeker bullets available today for both of those, they potentially have a greater effective reach, but the .35 Whelen, with the right bullet and load, can handle elk or moose to 500 yds.

.35 Whelen – with a 22″ barrel

225gr AB/ BC = .430/ SD = .251

MV = 2840 fps/4029 ft-lbs

100 yds = 2627 fps/3447 ft-lbs/ +2.94″

200 yds = 2424 fps/2935 ft-lbs

300 yds = 2230 fps/2483 ft-lbs

400 yds = 2044 fps/2088 ft-lbs

500 yds = 1869 fps/1744 ft-lbs/ -39″

The 250gr NP at 2700 fps has similar KE numbers, and is not quite as “flat shooting” but has a better SD at .279 and BC at .446 giving a better TE number of 51.5 – near ideal for a 1200 lb moose if hit right.

MV = 2700 fps/4046 ft-lbs

100 yds = 2507 fps/3487 ft-lbs/ +3.3″

200 yds = 2321 fps/2991 ft-lbs

300 yds = 2144 fps/2551 ft-lbs/ – 4.4″

400 yds = 1975 fps/2164 ft-lbs

500 yds = 1814 fps/1826 ft-lbs/ -42.7″ (TE = 51.5)

• 1814 fps impact velocity should be adequate for expansion on heavy game like elk and moose.

• Though I’ll never need it again for such work, yet the point is made that the .35 Whelen is not lacking for such tasks, including for brown bear within reasonable ranges.

The former Remington 7400 (semi) in .35 Whelen was a favorite of mine. Unfortunately, I had to sell a couple of rifles at that time due to a cash crunch, and the Whelen went to a very thankful deer hunter. It was a little on the heavy side being a semi, and all-up with ammo, scope and sling came close to 9 lbs.

My TRADITIONS G3 Outfitter in .35 Whelen, with one loaded and 3 in a stock cartridge holder, comes in at 7.75 lbs. Plus, its overall length is only 39.25 inches, including the 1.5″ brake, making it very handy and relatively light fror treking over hill and dale, and in tight places. Recoil, including brake, of the 250gr load is ~35 ft-lbs – about the same as a .300 Win Mag. Depending on loads and rifle weight factors, the recoil of a .300 Win runs around 35 ft-lbs, and the .338 about 40 ft-lbs. By comparison, my 300gr load for the .375 H&H is ~45 ft-lbs, or 29% greater than the .35 Whelen while still being 2.25 lbs heavier and 4″ longer – and it doesn’t have a brake, but does have a 22″ barrel.

<The scope is a Diamondback Vortex 3 – 9 x 40mm.

A powerful single-shot, that’s capable for almost anything anywhere! Bullets, powder and brass galore, and recoil being a non-issue! What’s not to like? As an all-arounder, 4000+ ft-lbs energy at the muzzle from 180s, 200s, 225s and 250s! Want it lighter? Remove that scope and use a 4X by 20mm, and put the extra ammo in an ammo belt around your waist. Then it would be about 7 and 1/4 lbs.

How does that compare with your .270 “what”? Oh yeah, that’s also a Winchester creation, borrowed from the .30-06, so it must be OK.

Unconventional? Who cares? I don’t! With that 225gr AB at 2840 fps, and at 7.75 lbs ready with one in the chamber and 3 in the stock cartridge holder, it’s also a perfect “mountain rifle” for logical guys and gals unconcerned with conventional ideas!

Til the next. . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The Case For a SINGLE-SHOT RIFLE

The point of this photo is to show how compact the Ruger No.1 is compared to the 1895 Marlin. Both are .45-70s with 22″ barrels. Yet the Ruger No.1 (LT) can fire a 400gr SP to 2400 fps, while the Marlin struggles to make 2100 fps from a 400gr FP. Those are, of course, best handloads.

The bear was shot using an 1895 Marlin similar to the one above. The bullet was a 400gr Seer FP at 1865 fps. Range was 100 yards. At the time, that was not a mild load for that rifle, but was max according to Speer’s manual. And a 400gr hitting at over 1500 fps is no slouch! In impact that is equal to a 200gr at over 3000 fps! But the facts are that the Ruger No.1 (above) shooting a tougher, pointed 400gr at 2400 fps would have impacted that trophy bear at ~2200 fps which is equal in smash/thump to a 200gr at 4400 fps!

And that’s all possible because of the vault-like-strong single-shot of only 38 inches!

Even a bolt-action 20″ Ruger .416 will be longer by a couple of inches, yet less powerful at the muzzle by about 150 fps from a 400gr! Yep, from a 20″ about 2250 fps at the muzzle. That’s the cost for a significantly less powerful second shot!

But wait! That’s not all! That Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT could fire a 500gr within 50 fps of the Ruger 20″, .416 firing that 400gr!

Yes, right at 2212 fps/5432 ft-lbs from a 38″, .458-caliber.< Add 14 fps for correction to the muzzle.

<Here it is before being traded on the Ruger No.1H in .458 Win Mag.

It was compact, powerful, accurate and relatively light to carry and handle at 8.25 lbs without the ammo. And it was my favorite rifle.

The Ruger No.1H in .458 Win is 2″ longer with it’s 24″ barrel that also adds 2 lbs wearing the same scope without ammo at 10.25 lbs. To reduce the weight by about 1 lb, I could remove the scope and rings, but I need the scope that is a 2 – 7 x 32mm. It’s mostly kept on 2x when walking about. In a blind it’s usually on 4 to 5x.

And the .458 Win in this Ruger No.1H is compact at only 40.25″, but note that the barrel is much heavier than the No.1 in .45-70 LT. That’s where most, if not all, that extra weight comes from, plus being 2″ longer. Then the chamber has an extra-long throat that allows long bullets to be seated extra-long! That throat is SAAMI spec, so it’s not unique to the Ruger No.1H. And it doesn’t have a magazine to potentially constrain the cartridge-overall-length (COL). That’s the magic of this Ruger No.1H (I had it done to the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 for the same reason to allow heavier-longer bullets to be seated much longer than specs for a .45-70). COLs can be extended to any length that still permits adequate bullet seating for a secure load.

For example: The normal length of a Federal .458 factory load of their 400gr TBBC is 3.31″. My handload for the 300gr Barnes TSX is almost identical at 3.317″. But the 300gr is much shorter than the 400gr, leaving more room for powder in the case. The 300gr is seated to the bottom cannelure at 0 .24″from the base of the bullet. The 400gr that Federal uses is about 1/4″ longer, meaning there’s about 1/4″ less space reserved in the case for powder at their COL. The 400gr TBBC is an excellent bullet, and if Federal made it optional for handloaders, I’d seat it out by 1/4″ giving a COL of 3.56″, allowing about 10 more grains of the right ball powder and boosting MV from 2280 fps to about 2590 fps/5960 ft-lbs instead of the nominal 4617 ft-lbs!

And, btw, that’s the exact MV that I’ve gotten from the right powder under a 400gr Barnes X-Bullet by seating it long to 3.61 COL. Even few bolt-actions with a magazine in .458 Win Mag will allow seating bullets that long. The throat on the No.1H permits a COL of up to 3.9″ if the bullet is long enough to still have about 1/4″ in the case. The longest bullet in my stash for .458-cal is the 600gr Barnes Original at 1.65″. With 0.45″ in the case that leaves 1.2″ outside the case giving a COL of 3.7″. My Ruger No.1H will chamber it, but also at 3.908! That means that whatever the bullet weight and/or length, I can always have the same room for a suitable powder, because all can be seated 0.25″ into the case. Faster powders like H4198 for shorter-light bullets and relatively slower to slow powders – H4895 to A2460 – for medium to the heaviest bullets!

< Two .458 Win cartridges. The one on the left is loaded with powder, primer and a 600gr Barnes Original at 3.7″ COL. The one on the right is a simulation without primer or powder, but the 600gr Barnes seated to 3.908″ COL. If you’ll note the black ink ring on the bullet at the mouth of the case, that was to see if that bullet, with its large bulbous nose, could be seated 1/4″ and still be chambered without pushing the bullet back into the case. The cartridge at 3.908″ COL was chambered, locked in place by the lever, and extracted with normal results without moving the bullet deeper into the case.

In a practical sense, that means that the brass case length, in effect, is 3.1″ instead of the nominal 2.5″. Against a .458 Lott, that means it has a 0.3″ longer case effect. Yet, as a practical matter, I’ll seat that bullet to 3.8″ in future handloads. That exceeds the Lott by 0.20″.

The original .458 Winchester Magnum was conceived and created by Winchester to more or less copy the ballistics of the British .470 NE that became famous as an elephant killer with 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle. But it was a much larger case to hold the long strands of cordite powder at lower pressure, and wasn’t very good at resisting spikes in psi in the hot African climes. Winchester increased the psi to a claimed 60,000 in the .458 Win, using a modern stick powder lightly compressed at 3.34″ COL. Their goal was 2125 fps from a 500gr solid/5013 ft-lbs, and the same from a 510gr soft/5113 ft-lbs. Essentially, the goal was 5000 ft-lbs at the muzzle, duplicating the .470 NE – and they succeeded from a 25″ barrel using the powders of circa 1956.

Today, my friends and I are getting ~6000 ft-lbs -SAFELY in using the best powders and bullets at a COL that matches the .458 Lott (3.6″) at ~62,000 psi. Not that I’ll ever need 6000 ft-lbs for anything, but like the extra horsepower of the V6 motor in my Ford, it’s nice to know it’s there and available when needed.

Any hunting rifle that’s developing 5000+ ft-lbs at the muzzle needs to be relatively heavy to mitigate recoil to acceptable levels and remain rock-solid. A “lightweight” rifle of that order has no place in serious hunting of large and dangerous game. In my experience an eight and one-half pound .458-cal ready to hunt is verging on self-abuse if it’s loaded right for elephant, Cape Buffalo, lion, hippo, etc.

“In my experience”, I said. . . . Yes, the “lightweight” Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT firing 500s at 2200 fps was “up there” among a rare few at 75 to 80 ft-lbs recoil. I’d shot it quite a bit to develop those loads at the bench, then on game a few times. But all that was for “discovery”. I then went in another direction loading the 300gr TSX at 2650 fps for bear over bait. Recoil? 47 – 48 ft-lbs. Still plenty, but only about 60% of the top load in recoil from the Ruger No.1 .45-70 LT!

<At a bear blind waiting for a buck to show up! The load? Those 300gr TSX’s! Just after this pic, a shot was fired across the road from me. I had to check it out but it was “a miss” they said. . . maybe the buck went across to where I’d been! In fact, I’d originally intended to hunt where they were. I’d usually park on that side of the road in a man-made parking area – which we used in baiting the spot I was in, originally for a bear hunt. When I saw one of them up high on that ridge, I backed out and came across the dirt road to the ridge where the pic shows. I figured the other side was the best side for deer since from high up I could see a vast area below me. At the bear-bait site, matters were much more closed-in with trees and brush, but an excellent location for bear hunting. Some big ones showed up there. Range was short at 35 yds.

Good weather, good times, and an excellent single-shot rifle that I’ll never forget!

What else is there to say? Oh, quite a bit:

• I hunted never counting on the need for a second shot! Because it wasn’t a need unless I’d messed up like the two hunters on the other side of the road. There were two of ’em with “repeaters”, but I heard one shot only! And the man who fired the shot said it was at a big buck!

• I count on one and done! It makes me a better shot.

• In my sense, there’s greater satisfaction in knowing you can hit the game where needed on the first shot rather than in multiple shots. And “everyone” agrees that it’s the fist shot that’s most important!

• I’m no “traditionalist” by any stretch of the imagination, but in my experience a single-shot rifle requires less maintainance to insure it’s ready for the next hunt. Yeah, I check screws once in a while, but that’s it! A 2-piece stock with a tough, vault-like action between has few parts to check and maintain. How often have I fiddled with wooden 1-piece stocks to insure there wasn’t pressure in the wrong places. Yeah, I know with synthetic stocks and aluminum bedding blocks, most bolt-actions today are rock steady – and expensive! Yet there are still screws and bolts to check.

My single-shot .35 Whelen gets cleaned once in awhile . . . . And that’s it!

Whatever you shoot, take care and have fun! And a single-shot rifle is not only foolproof, but fun!

Till the next. . . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL