Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors A frustrated man speaks out - It Is Not A Moose Gun

Tweaked the reply into one column to make it easier reading, though it is a bit long.

Worth the read. From Outdoor Life, 1915.

From God's lips to our ears.

Wonder what he thought the first time he saw the tiger pictures?

As good with words as he was with cartridge design!

Fun read Rory!

Thx for posting.

If it's any consolation, those discussions regarding speed, power, kill/wound are still going on today. Best cartridge, best all around cartridge, etc.
Largely a waste of breathe IMO.
I'm no ballistics expert, don't reload, don't chrono, but I shoot, practice and when I hunt I work for a close, clean kill regardless of the quarry.
I have a general understanding of the physics involved and just make sure I can hit the pump house 100% of the time, which generally means a reasonably close shot at a clear target. Werks fer me.

True that, can't get much closer to the Truth than the Creator!
Thanks for sharing that Rory,
Amen!

But, to temper God's argument (I've always been an agnostic, at best), with today's bullets being infinitely better than what was available 100 years ago (to whit, Barnes TSX for example) a case can be made that the old warnings don't apply as universally as they did back then. As recently as a generation ago, .22 centerfires were relegated virtually strictly to varmint/small game hunting because of the behavior of their highly frangible bullets fired at very high velocity. That world has now been turned completely upside down thanks to wondrous advances in bullet technology. Heavy-for-caliber and stoutly constructed or by virtue of monometal construction- it doesn't matter how that's achieved, but what does matter is that you are better equipped for all-around .22 usage than your father was.

I would however, still refrain from shooting moose/mooses/meese, or anything else monstrously huge and/or capable of stomping/eating me with a .22 HP (or a Swift, .22-250, or .22 Creedmoor for that matter).

Feel like I just went to church to hear the gospel according to Newton. Great read.

I like that, "Porky of the Northern Woods." I'm certain Mr. Newton was not in the minority in his opinion of the 22HP. In fact, whenever I've poked fun at the cartridge its always been with that "one picture" in mind on the good reverend standing near his tiger kill in India.

I'm not a scholar of the issue but I can't say I've found many other materials that actually promoted use of the 22HP on large game and have to wonder how much of that tale is actually a myth of history. Has anyone on this forum shot at anything much larger than porky, know someone who has or knew of someone who knew someone who did? If so, what were the results? I have to add to this that I have found the 22HP never a popular round out here and have seen a few fine examples languish on tables at shows for, what I have to assume, was because of that.

Each and every era of time has its wingnut minorities and perhaps the big game hunter of the early 1900s armed with the 22HP was, in his day, actually seen by most as operating a couple twists of the wrench short of a full torque.

Wyoming game laws state that elk and larger are only to be hunted with rifles that shoot bullets larger than .240 inch diameter. I've heard from more than one old timer that the .22 Hi-Power was the cause of this ruling due to the number of larger animals maimed by this cartridge. Some of these old timers also said they had a .22 HP when they were a kid and it wasn't worth a darn on elk and moose. It does work good on antelope.

I know of at least three fellas right here on this forum (myself included) who have killed deer-sized game with their .22HP's over the years, and I bet there's a couple more lurking in the background. I know a guy in Wyoming who fills his elk tag every year with a .22-250 (not exactly germane to the discussion, but evidence nonetheless of the efficacy of using properly constructed bullets for the the job at hand), but he is a steely-eyed precision shooter who is knowledgeable of anatomy and has a sense of personal limitations. I haven't employed a .22HP in the pursuit of deer for a couple years now, not that I lost faith in it but because I've acquired a slew of other different rifles I wished to work with.

The thing is when it comes to using the .22HP on big game today, the aforementioned improvements in bullet technology don't apply to it. The only .228 bullets available to HP shooters are all old-fashioned cup-and-cores, whether old stocks of discontinued Hornady, Speer, Sisk, etc. or current offerings by boutique custom bullet makers. I've often said that if Barnes brought out a .228 TSX in a length short enough to work in the old Savages I would buy a thousand of them and sell off a thousand of my current stash of old c-n-c bullets to defray the cost.

Intuitive knowledge gained from sage advice of yore can be faulty, if not re-analyzed cognitively.

Liked that column, thanks for posting it. Sounds like the man knew what he was talking about.

I think the point about bullet construction is a big part of it. Even "normal" cup and core bullets nowadays are better than the cup and core bullets made in 1912, when smokeless powder and high velocity cartridges were only a couple decades old.

Townsend Whelen here admits that it's biggest problem is it's failure to penetrate, though his distaste for takedown featherweight 1899's also shows in his comments about accuracy.

I always figured that Townsend Whelen approached most rifle problems from the perspective of the 1903 Springfield. Working from that perspective I would have expected him to have found the 99 not the most stable platform for the taking of either varmint or target. I'm not sure that meant he actually disliked the 99. Its just that he preferred apples over oranges with the 03 being the apple of his eye.

Townsend Whelen liked the 1899, he just didn't like takedowns or featherweight rifles. He had input into the design of the 1930's 99R/99RS.

On the 303 Savage: "This cartridge is very satisfactory for all but the very largest game. It is a considerably better killing cartridge than the .30-30, probably because the heavier bullet is a better bone smaller. Mr. W. G. C. Manson of Lillooet, British Columbia, has used this cartridge for years for large game, and in fact was almost the first man to use it in the field. He told me that when he first received his rifle he took it into the mountains with him on a hunt, and the first bo of 20 cartridges accounted for 18 head of large game, including 2 grizzlies. The cartridge is a good one, but is of course considerably outclassed by a number of more modern cartridges."

On the 1899: "The rifle is made in both solid frame and take-down styles, the former being always preferable on account of its much better accuracy. It is also made in a number of different styles with various lengths and weights of barrels, from 25 inches to the 20-inch carbine, and in featherweight models. The balance of the rifle is very good indeed, particularly if made with a 22-inch barrel, pistol grip, and shotgun butt. The design of the stock is very good, but is about half an inch too short to fit the average man correctly. The drop at the comb and heel are just about right.
...
All barrels are made of the same special smokeless steel that is used in United States Government arms. The Savage barrels made during the past nine years at least have been most excellent, the three which I possess at the present time showing excellent finish, calibration, and straightness, and giving fine accuracy. I consider this rifle an exceedingly reliable and durable arm."

Calhoun: Thanks for the article - very interesting - and from 105 years ago.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I didn't know about Whelen's input on the R but I have to say that it makes sense, considering the shape and weight of the R..

Not a moose gun? Who'da thunk it.