|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,823
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,823 |
Hey, lets not get personal, what is wrong with fat chicks on Vespas? NUTHIN'  ![[Linked Image]](http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/jorgeIg/culo_zpsecducjln.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415970757962_wps_38_Saartjie_Baartman_A_Pair_.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491 |
Conrad,
Just curious: How do you know a .30-06 doesn't work o0n charging grizzlies? I happen to know - well, it's second-hand anyway- that a 338 Win Mag is perfectly capable of 'laming' a big bear without killing it, at least not before its winter hibernation……… And I happen to know - first-hand this time  - that a 375 H&H, even in the hands of one not perfectly "slickety-slick", can be used to bore more than one magazine's worth of holes in a relatively small bear……. So, therefore, a 30-06 must not be much good, Phil Shoemaker's evidence notwithstanding……he must just be lucky… …….or perhaps being 'good' matters more than we want to believe. 
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089 |
Once again: Exactly how do you know this? Have you shot a bunch of charging grizzlies, with a .30-06 or .458 or anything else?
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 746
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 746 |
A "double barrel in 458 rem mag", huh??? LOL. You definitely know your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 516
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 516 |
Everyone knows that you stop a charging grizzly by taking away his Visa card.... DUH?
Why does a man who is 50 pounds overweight complain about a 10 pound rifle being too heavy?
SCI Life Member 4**
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
Years back, there was this study conducted by USF&W about what rifle/cartridges would do the best job of protecting their workers in bear country. It ended up as an article in Rifle magazine (IIRC). (Was a guy named Thelonius the author?) I can't recall the precise order of how the cartridges were ranked...and also the study was conducted mostly with factory C&C bullets and based on expansion, penetration, etc etc.. Those conducting the study concluded that the first few "winners" were the 460 Weatherby,the 458 Win,the 375H&H,the 338,and the 30/06.Mostly these conclusions were based on the use of the heaviest factory load bullets, i.e.,500 gr for the 45's and 300 gr for the 375 and 338.In the 30/06 the 220 was top dog. The 30/06 with 220's ranked higher than any 300 magnum or 7mm magnum because it was felt that at close range, from the magnums,penetration was compromised too much by excessive expansion even with the heavier bullets,due to higher velocity. The 30/06 is no punk cartridge. I have never shot a charging brown bear with anything. Both of mine were shot with 375's and did not get a chance to charge. I bet that people with real experience on charging brown bears are about as abundant as really proficient 1000 yard elk shots....maybe scarcer. 
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089 |
I read that study. It was done in the days when not many factories loaded "premium bullets."
I know somebody pretty well who has shot a number of charging grizzlies with both the .30-06 and .458 Winchester, as well as some other rounds, and so far hasn't been mauled, or even scratched. (Or at least he hadn't when I saw him in February, but it's bear season in Alaska right now.) While I strongly suspect my friend would choose the .458 over the .30-06, I was just wondering why Conrad could be so firm in his opinion that the .30-06 would "not work" on charging grizzlies.
There's also some mild curiosity about Conrad's recommendation of a .458 double.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
John I have heard of that guy. He's one of those scarce experts. 
Last edited by BobinNH; 05/05/15.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491 |
That fellow we aren't naming knows how to use what he's got in his hands at the moment well. And that was the point of my previous post - which knowing persons didn't miss, I'm sure. Lots of juice, placed poorly, is easily trumped by enough in the right place. The 30-06 has enough. (And even less has worked/been adequate in capable/lucky hands……….a certain Mini-14 event comes to mind……which reminds me, I need to buy more stock in Fruit-of-the-Loom. )
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651 |
Years back, there was this study conducted by USF&W about what rifle/cartridges would do the best job of protecting their workers in bear country. It ended up as an article in Rifle magazine (IIRC). (Was a guy named Thelonius the author?) I can't recall the precise order of how the cartridges were ranked...and also the study was conducted mostly with factory C&C bullets and based on expansion, penetration, etc etc.. Those conducting the study concluded that the first few "winners" were the 460 Weatherby,the 458 Win,the 375H&H,the 338,and the 30/06.Mostly these conclusions were based on the use of the heaviest factory load bullets, i.e.,500 gr for the 45's and 300 gr for the 375 and 338.In the 30/06 the 220 was top dog. The 30/06 with 220's ranked higher than any 300 magnum or 7mm magnum because it was felt that at close range, from the magnums,penetration was compromised too much by excessive expansion even with the heavier bullets,due to higher velocity. The 30/06 is no punk cartridge. I have never shot a charging brown bear with anything. Both of mine were shot with 375's and did not get a chance to charge. I bet that people with real experience on charging brown bears are about as abundant as really proficient 1000 yard elk shots....maybe scarcer. Bob - I did an analysis of that report and found glaring mathematical errors which severely skewed the results. I redid the calculations and have published them before. When I get home tonight i'll see if I can dig up my results and post them again.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
CH: You mean a government study was somehow flawed? I find that surprising!
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,267
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,267 |
I was having lunch with a rancher friend and an elk outfitter acquaintance some years back. We got to talking about grizzlies and rifles and the old outfitter related a great story that actually happened to him (he had the scars to prove it).
The outfitter's area was in the AB Wilderness off Paradise Valley. Seems he was going in to his camp when he found himself between a mama grizz and her cubs. The mama grizz got him in a pretty good "bear hug" (quite literally) and wouldn't let go. He was flailing around, unable to get lose. Finally he swung the butt of his 30-06 around and got mama right on the snout. She let loose and ran off.
He wryly told me, "don't let anyone ever tell you a 30-06 isn't enough for grizzly."
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,614 |
I've never hunted Brown Bears, but hopefully some day I will. I do, and have known and spoken with, many Guides and hunters who have.
To those who had relatively uneventful hunts as is "there he is, wait until he stops, then shoot when you are ready" type of scenario, the 06 is PERFECTLY adequate. Then again those who've had a bit more exciting hunts, to a MAN, all wished that no matter what they were carrying, they wished they had something bigger. I have an uncle who was fortunate enough to hunt Polar Bears (in Norway I think) and he took his 458. Shot his bear up close as apparently those bears have zero fear of man and when they see you, they think "lunch"! and just come. He said he wished he had something bigger. When I go, I'll not be taking an 06...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,831 |
IDK man. In Alaska the natives cartridge of choice is more often than not is a 223 for everything from seal, caribou, and polar bear and it seems to do the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,065
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,065 |
She developed young and kept right on developing....
Defend the Constitution
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,965
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,965 |
I don't expect to ever hunt Grizzly or Brown Bears. But if was somewhere I needed protection from them I think I'd bring my HK91 loaded with 20 rounds of 308 Winchester hunting ammo. Quality and quantity together
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 362
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 362 |
The Tea Party Movement is pretty much the same as a bowel movement except that it smells worse and has far less in the way of intelligent content.
--DancesWithGuns
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651 |
CH: You mean a government study was somehow flawed? I find that surprising! In a word, "yes". Below is the analysis I did back in September of 2003. =========================================================== Safety in Bear Country: Protective Measures and Bullet Performance at Short Range General Technical Report PNW-152 http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The study is dated (1983) and the methodology used to calculate the results is horribly flawed, but the raw data is raw data. I entered that data into a spreadsheet and made my own calculations, with drastically different results. More about my results later, but first, some excerpts regarding the report’s methodology, and a few comments about its flaws: We evaluated each cartridge-bullet weight-barrel length combination tested by four ballistic categories: striking energy, penetration, retained bullet weight, and bullet expansion. We also measured bullet velocity because energy is a function of bullet weight and velocity.
…
To determine expansion, we measured to the nearest 0.01 inch the maximum diameter of the bullet (or the largest fragment) and the diameter at 90 degrees to the maximum diameter. The cross-sectional area of this ellipse was determined by the formula A=3.1416 ab, where a = maximum diameter and b = diameter at 90 degrees to a. Both retained bullet weight and expansion were expressed as a percentage of the weight and cross-sectional area of an unfired bullet pulled from a cartridge identical to that fired in the tests.
…
Because we had no unbiased way to determine the relative importance of each ballistic category, we considered each to be equally important. Our first step in evaluating overall ballistic performance was to calculate the average value in each category for the three shots fired from each test combination. We then divided each average by the maximum average value in its category to convert it to a relative proportion of the maximum value encountered during the tests. We rounded the quotient to two significant decimal places and multiplied by 100 to eliminate decimals. This transformation also eliminated the different category units and allowed all four to be arithmetically combined into a single performance score. We calculated this score by multiplying the four relative scores of each test combination. To eliminate the use of unwieldy eight-digit numbers as scores, we divided the product by 100,000 and rounded the quotient to the nearest whole number. This provided a two- or three-digit score for each test combination, which we ranked in highest to lowest order. Your government funded study can’t get the formula for the area of an ellipse correct, but there are even bigger problems. Accepting their definitions for ‘A’, ‘a’ and ‘b’, where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are diameter measurments, the correct formula is “A=3.1416 * 1/2a * 1/2b”, not “A=3.1416 a * b”. The formula error resulted in a calculated expansion that was 4x greater than it should be, and erroneously skewed the results in favor of expanding bullets regardless of their initial or final diameters. Further, the authors don’t seem know the difference between “retained bullet weight” and “ percent retained bullet weight”, or between “bullet expansion” and “ percent bullet expansion”. Consider the following bullets: .224” 55g, expanded 100% to .448” and retained weight of 100% or 55g, and .458” 405g expanded 64% to .750” and retained weight of 90% or 364g. Using the author’s methodology and assuming expansion in a perfect circle, the .224” bullet would score 100 in both retained weight and expansion, while the .458” bullet would score 64 and 90 respectively. These interim scores are then multiplied together (along with those for striking energy and penetration, which we will ignore for now) to achieve a final score. Hence the .224” bullet scores 10,000 while the .458” bullet scores 5,760, or a little over half what the .224” bullet scores in these categories. The author’s methodology resulted in silly stuff like a 7x57 Mauser with a 175 grain bullet with a retained weight of 91g outscoring a 12 gauge 438g slug with a retained weight of 420g, even though the slug out-penetrated the 7mm bullet. The problem is exacerbated due to the author’s use of an incorrect formula for calculating the area of the expanded bullets, as previously explained. It seems to me that it would make much more sense to compare retained weight in grains, not percent, and bullet expansion in inches instead of percent, and base the scores accordingly. In this manner, the .224 scores 55 and .448, which combine to form a score of 25.19, while the .458” bullet scores 364 and .75, for a combined score of 273. I think most of us would agree the .45-70 is more likely to be 10 times more effective than a .22-250 for the purposes cited, rather than half as effective, so this methodology at least passes the laugh test. I used this method to recalculate scores for all the loads tested in the report, along with some Garrett Hammerhead loads and loads based on handload data. Here are the US Forest Service Results:
Cartridge/Notes....USFS Score....USFS Rank....Weight (grains)....Type....Brand....Velocity @ 15 Yards (fps)....Energy @ 15 Yards (fpe)
.458 Win. Mag.............538.....1....510....RSP....W-W....2074....4871
.460 Why. Mag.............467.....2....500....RSP....WBY....2364....6204
.375 H&H Mag. (L).........301.....3....300....SSP....W-W....2541....4903
.338 Win. Mag. (S)........260.....4....300....RSP....W-W....2314....3568
.375 H&H (L)..............239.....5....270....RSP....R-P....2659....4241
.338 Win.Mag. (S).........213.....6....200....PSP....W-W....2699....3235
.338 Win. Mag. (S)........197.....7....250....SSP....W-W....2507....3491
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........191.....8....200....PSP....W-W....2634....3563
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........186.....9....300....RSP....W-W....2360....3710
.375 H&H Mag. (S).........185....10....300....SSP....W-W....2401....3843
.30-06 U.S................157....11....220....RSP....R-P....2261....2498
.30-06 U.S................153....12....180....RSP....R-P....2456....2411
.444 Marlin...............146....13....240....FSP....R-P....2237....2668
.358 Winchester...........142....14....200....SSP....W-W....2366....2488
7mm Rem. Mag.............141....15....175....PSP....W-W....2709....2853
.375 H&H (S)..............137....16....270....RSP....R-P....2456....3735
.45-70 U.S. (S)...........133....17....300....HSP....FED....1573....1649
.308 Winchester...........128....18....180....RSP....FED....2430....2360
.45-70 U.S. (L)...........124....19....300....HSP....FED....1666....1849
.358 Norma Mag............115....20....250....PSP....NOR....2730....4139
8mm Rem. Mag..............107....21....185....PSP....R-P....2991....3676
.300 Weatherby Mag........104....22....180....PSP....WBY....3033....3678
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........100....23....250....SSP....W-W....2594....3735
.350 Rem. Mag..............93....24....200....SSP....R-P....2568....2931
7x57mm Mauser..............87....25....175....RSP....FED....2419....2274
12-gauge x 2-3/4 inch......74....26....438....LRN....FED....1398....1902
.45-70 U.S. (L)............65....27....405....RSP....R-P....1322....1572
.300 Win. Mag..............60....28....200....PSP....FED....2699....3237
.300 Weatherby. Mag........59....29....220....RSP....WBY....2798....3826
.45-70 U.S. (S)............50....30....405....RSP....R-P....1211....1319
8mm Rem. Mag...............49....31....220....PSP....R-P....2779....3773
.44 Rem. Mag. (L)..........47....32....240....LGC....R-P....1401....1046
.300 Win. Mag..............44....33....180....PSP....FED....2959....3268
Here are my results, based on ADDing the individual scores (Additive Rank) for energy, penetration, retained weigh and expansion. (Since I didn’t have weight retention and expansion data for the new loads, I used the averages for the original four .45-70 loads.) I also included a “Multiplier Rank” based on my methodology, which corresponds closely but not exactly to the “Additive Rank”:
Cartridge/Notes....Weight (grains)....Type....Brand....Velocity @ 15 Yards (fps)....Energy @ 15 Yards (fpe)....Multipier Rank....Additive Rank
.458 Win Mag...............510....RSP..........W-W........2074....4871......1.....1
.460 Why. Mag..............500....RSP..........WBY........2364....6204......2.....2
.45-70.....................540....HC...........Garrett....1550....2880......3.....3
12-gauge x 2-3/4 inch......438....LRN..........FED........1398....1902......9.....4
.45-70.....................400....JFP..........Speer......2002....3560......4.....5
450M.......................400.....JFP.........Speer......1958....3405......5.....6
.45-70.....................420.....HC..........Garrett....1850....3200......6.....7
.375 H&H Mag. (L)..........300.....SSP.........W-W........2541....4903.....11.....8
.45-70.....................350.....JSP.........Hornady....2191....3730......7.....9
450M.......................350.....JSP.........Hornady....2196....3747......8....10
.45-70.....................300.....Partition...Nosler.....2424....3914.....10....11
.45-70.....................420.....HC..........Garrett....1650....2450.....13....12
450M.......................300.....Partition...Nosler.....2321....3588.....12....13
.45-70 U.S. (S)............300.....HSP.........FED........1573....1649.....18....14
.45-70.....................300.....Nosler Par..Garrett....2150....3080.....14....15
450M.......................250.....XFN.........Barnes.....2509....3494.....15....16
.338 Win. Mag. (S).........300.....RSP.........W-W........2314....3568.....17....17
.375 H&H (L)...............270.....RSP.........R-P........2659....4241.....16....18
.45-70 U.S. (L)............300.....HSP.........FED........1666....1849.....20....19
.45-70 U.S. (L)............405.....RSP.........R-P........1322....1572.....23....20
.45-70 U.S. (S)............405.....RSP.........R-P........1211....1319.....28....21
.375 H&H Mag. (S)..........300.....SSP.........W-W........2401....3843.....19....22
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........300.....RSP.........W-W........2360....3710.....22....23
.444 Marlin................240.....FSP.........R-P........2237....2668.....21....24
.338 Win. Mag. (S).........250.....SSP.........W-W........2507....3491.....24....25
.338 Win.Mag. (S)..........200.....PSP.........W-W........2699....3235.....25....26
.358 Norma Mag.............250.....PSP.........NOR........2730....4139.....30....27
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........200.....PSP.........W-W........2834....3563.....26....28
.375 H&H (S)...............270.....RSP.........R-P........2456....3735.....27....29
.30-06 U.S.................220.....RSP.........R-P........2261....2498.....31....30
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........250.....SSP.........W-W........2594....3735.....32....31
.358 Winchester............200.....SSP.........W-W........2366....2488.....29....32
8mm Rem. Mag...............185.....PSP.........R-P........2991....3676.....37....33
.300 Weatherby Mag.........180.....PSP.........WBY........3033....3678.....39....34
.30-06 U.S.................180.....RSP.........R-P........2456....2411.....33....35
.300 Weatherby. Mag........220.....RSP.........WBY........2798....3826.....41....36
7mm Rem. Mag..............175.....PSP.........W-W........2709....2853.....38....37
.350 Rem. Mag..............200.....SSP.........R-P........2568....2931.....34....38
.44 Rem. Mag. (L)..........240.....LGC.........R-P........1401....1046.....36....39
.308 Winchester............180.....RSP.........FED........2430....2360.....35....40
.300 Win. Mag..............200.....PSP.........FED........2699....3237.....43....41
8mm Rem. Mag...............220.....PSP.........R-P........2779....3773.....42....42
7x57mm Mauser..............175.....RSP.........FED........2419....2274.....40....43
.300 Win. Mag..............180.....PSP.........FED........2959....3268.....44....44
My results aren’t perfect either, as the .300 Win Mag 180g bullet comes in dead last, but I think the overall results make far more sense than what the USFS concluded. Although I determined the methodology first and built my spreadsheet accordingly (rather than build the spreadsheet to make the numbers come out a particular way), I was not surprised the .45-70 did better than in the USFS study. What did amaze me was 16 of the top 17 rankings went to a .458” bullet or bigger (12 gauge), and included ALL the .45-70 and 450 Marlin loads, even the original .45-70 loads tested by the USFS. The lone exception was a .375H&H load that came in at #11 (Multiplier Rank) or #8 (Additive Rank). =========================================================== There is no doubt that one could spend more time on the subject and come up with better ways to rank the various loads based on the given data. I've thought about doing it myself, but, frankly, I have better things to do. If anyone else is so inclined, I'd be interested in their results.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,089 |
Jorge,
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears.
Here is the signature line from the unnamed expert who hasn't posted here, probably because he's actually out guiding clients for very big grizzlies, generally known as brown bears:
"Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship."
As I noted in an earlier post, I'd bet he'd vote for the .458 Winchester over the .30-06 for charging grizzlies, but he has actually used both on several wounded, charging bears and hasn't been mauled yet. So to flatly claim the .30-06 "won't work" because somebody else who wasn't mauled has wished for a bigger gun, or some other sort of theory-based argument, is once again mere speculation.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807 |
Jorge,
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears.
Here is the signature line from the unnamed expert who hasn't posted here, probably because he's actually out guiding clients for very big grizzlies, generally known as brown bears:
"Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship."
As I noted in an earlier post, I'd bet he'd vote for the .458 Winchester over the .30-06 for charging grizzlies, but he has actually used both on several wounded, charging bears and hasn't been mauled yet. So to flatly claim the .30-06 "won't work" because somebody else who wasn't mauled has wished for a bigger gun, or some other sort of theory-based argument, is once again mere speculation. Excellent post JB, Excellent!
|
|
|
|
|
533 members (1moredeer, 1beaver_shooter, 1minute, 1Longbow, 1lessdog, 10gaugemag, 67 invisible),
2,616
guests, and
1,393
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,449
Posts18,471,018
Members73,934
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
