"While many hunters think it's crazy to hunt dangerous game with a push-feed rifle, the grizzly died and I did not." It is amazing how a few well chosen words get make a point, in a way that anyone can understand.
Without telling my age, in all of my 70+ years of hunting and camping, the subject of CRF or not has never come up! Bin waitin so I can brag on my 1953 Model 70.
And my only true DG was shot with my 1886 and1895 leverguns.
Was Mr. Grizz dispatched by the Second, or Subsequent Rounds Discounting the Initial Miss ?
This is where CRF Excells. Any Common Push Feed Aaction can bring the Initial round from Magazine to Battery. Faithfully, and Without Fail Delivery in the Face of Mortal Odds of the Subsequent Cartridge is the True Definition of Panache
Complaining about push feed vs. CRF is just baloney. If CRF were more reliable they'd use it for new military rifle designs. They haven't since 1898.
You see all the know-nothings say that PF cannot feed upside down (not true), that PF extractors break (has nothing to do with the PF design), that PF bolt handles break off (same thing), and similar ridiculous things.
I've killed four species of DG in Africa with a push feed action, Several required fast feeding. All with a PF action. The only failure-to-feed was in Wyoming with a Model 98 action.
Complaining about push feed vs. CRF is just baloney. If CRF were more reliable they'd use it for new military rifle designs. They haven't since 1898.
You see all the know-nothings say that PF cannot feed upside down (not true), that PF extractors break (has nothing to do with the PF design), that PF bolt handles break off (same thing), and similar ridiculous things.
I've killed four species of DG in Africa with a push feed action, Several required fast feeding. All with a PF action. The only failure-to-feed was in Wyoming with a Model 98 action.
How about the 1903 Springfield, 1917 Enfield and 303 SMLE ? They all were CRF, for very good reasons ! The problem was not mechanical, but human foibles
If you'd read the original story, you'd know the first shot (at about 60-65 yards) went into the "fold" at the rear of the left shoulder of the 7-1/2 foot grizzly as it stood angling slightly away. This was after a mile-long stalk that obviously went rather well.
The boar had just emerged from the tall grass next to a shallow pond, and at the shot whirled and started running back along the line it had been walking when it emerged from the grass. They apparently do this often after being fatally shot, and it brought the bear closer to me and my guide. We both shot at the same moment--just as the bear whirled to bite at the entrance hole, something they also often do--and as a result we both missed. I shot a third time as the bear started running angling away, and it disappeared in the long grass.
The first shot (a 250-grain 9.3mm Nosler AccuBond at 2650 fps) landed right where I aimed, and exited alongside the bone of the right shoulder, leaving a 1" exit hole. It put a big hole through both lungs just above the heart, so the bear was dying--but not quite dead. My third shot entered the middle of the ribcage on the right side, and traversed the chest cavity before the bullet ended up under the hide on the left side of the neck, a few inches in front of the left shoulder. If I recall correctly, it retained around 80% of its weight.
The entire 3-round sequence probably took less than 5 seconds. I can say this because a couple years before I'd done essentially the same thing, shooting offhand on a target range, at three targets from under 50 to around 100 yards away--with another bolt-action rifle. I hit all three targets, and was timed at a little over 4 seconds from the first shot to the last. This was the fastest time recorded in that event that day, and was witnessed by several people.
I learned to run a bolt-action very quickly a long time ago, with the "slap" method described by John Wootters in an article published in the 1970s. At the time my only two big game rifles were both 700s, and the method worked great--because it absolutely prevents "short-stroking," the supposed reason push-feed actions can fail at critical moments.
I had already used the same rifle (though with another barrel) on over a dozen big game animals. It was originally a factory stainless/synthetic 700 in 7mm SAUM, and after using it considerably (sometimes quite rapidly, as described) the bolt handle hadn't fallen off. (In fact I've never had a bolt handle fall off a 700, though I knew it occasionally happens--usually early on.) After Charlie Sisk rebarreled it to the 9.3 Barsness-Sisk wildcat we developed together around 2005, it worked just as well, if anything feeding even slicker.
If you want confirmation of the above description of the events, my guide on that 2009 hunt (a great guy named Bryce Johnson) still works for the same outfitter, Stoney River Lodge. Oh, and by the way, his rifle on that hunt was a Browning A-Bolt stainless/synthetic in .338 Winchester Magnum. He may be still using it a dozen years later, but dunno. He'd been using it for several years when I hunted with him, and was pleased with its performance.
Complaining about push feed vs. CRF is just baloney. If CRF were more reliable they'd use it for new military rifle designs. They haven't since 1898.
You see all the know-nothings say that PF cannot feed upside down (not true), that PF extractors break (has nothing to do with the PF design), that PF bolt handles break off (same thing), and similar ridiculous things.
I've killed four species of DG in Africa with a push feed action, Several required fast feeding. All with a PF action. The only failure-to-feed was in Wyoming with a Model 98 action.
How about the 1903 Springfield, 1917 Enfield and 303 SMLE ? They all were CRF, for very good reasons ! The problem was not mechanical, but human foibles
The 1903 Springfiield was just a copy or the Mauser '98, so close that the US government paid the Germans a royalty after either a lawsuit or the threat of one. The payments stopped during WWI.
I think (not sure) that the 1917 Enfield was a copy of the 303 SMLE. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe the SMLE was designed before 1898.
The first "all new" 20th Century US design was the M1 Garand (push feed as was the M14 and the M16/AR150.
What were the human foibles reasons for the early CRF actions?
The lawsuit which resulted in the U.S. paying Mauser royalties mostly involved the Mauser top insertion clip, not the action itself. Though there were certainly some similarities between the actions, there were enough differences to avoid that issue.
The 1917 Enfield was considerably different from the Lee-Enfield action, with more resemblance to a cock-on-closing pre-98 Mauser action.
The problem I have experienced with my Model 700 PF is not in the push feeding but the extraction. I have replaced 2 extractors. One on a 222 and one on a 22-250. When the 22-250 broke another one, they both went in for Sako style.
On the other side, I have a 700 in 270 that has had thousands of rounds through it, currently on it's second barrel. Never had to replace that extractor.
MD - glad you’re still around to relate the details of this adventure. Early 90s I had one of the A-bolt Stainless Stalkers in 338Win which I regret trading off. It was pleasantly accurate, and recoil was quite manageable. Fairly wide butt and recoil pad.
Your 700 7mmSaum was quite a workhorse for you, factory chambering then the 9.3 Barsness Sisk on the 350 case, and then the 6.5 PRC . Was it throated shorter than SAAMI, or just worked out most accurate loaded that way ?
I used to hunt a fairly small area with my Dad. When he shot, I could pretty well tell by sound that it was him and where he was. He used ny Grandfather's circa 52' model 70.. One season I hear what sounded like an auto loader dump 5 rounds. Wasn't sure it was him. I headed that way anyway. It was him, and we had work to do.
A few years later. By myself in the same woods. I did the same thing he had done. Only it was 4 rpunds. What I always carried in my Remington 700.. Afterwards. I had work to do.
Niether one of us ever practiced speed. We just got excited. In both cases though. At least for us. Slow and precise would have maybe been better or just as good. But both rifles performed flawlessly.
Although I will say a Rem 700 trigger can freeze up if it gets wet and cold. Need to watch em' in bad weather.
The lawsuit which resulted in the U.S. paying Mauser royalties mostly involved the Mauser top insertion clip, not the action itself. Though there were certainly some similarities between the actions, there were enough differences to avoid that issue.
The 1917 Enfield was considerably different from the Lee-Enfield action, with more resemblance to a cock-on-closing pre-98 Mauser action.
Interestingly, both arose from experience fighting enemies armed with pre-98 Mausers, the US looking hard at the 1893 Mauser and the British at the 1895, after coming up against them. Both also embodied a few local ideas/prejudices, such as the US insistence on a magazine cutoff and the British wanting a big action to suit a high-velocity 7mm, so as to really reach out there, after having troubles reaching out with the early Lee Enfields in South Africa (mostly due to issues with sights, but that is another story).
It sounds like your hunt went well. It is a good lesson in the value of practicing quick follow-up shots. Everyone hopes not to need them, but sometimes that ability to throw them in quickly and accurately makes a real difference.
I learned to run a bolt-action very quickly a long time ago, with the "slap" method described by John Wootters in an article published in the 1970s. At the time my only two big game rifles were both 700s, and the method worked great--because it absolutely prevents "short-stroking," the supposed reason push-feed actions can fail at critical moments.
I was still pretty oblivious to hunting and shooting in the 70's.
Can you provide a link or briefly describe the slap method? I think I know what you're describing, but I'd like to be sure. I've got #1 grand daughter coming up and I want to make sure I've got it right.
The lawsuit which resulted in the U.S. paying Mauser royalties mostly involved the Mauser top insertion clip, not the action itself. Though there were certainly some similarities between the actions, there were enough differences to avoid that issue.
The 1917 Enfield was considerably different from the Lee-Enfield action, with more resemblance to a cock-on-closing pre-98 Mauser action.
Mule Deer
With your permission I would like to 'steal' that for my sig line. W/o it I won't.
Your 700 7mmSaum was quite a workhorse for you, factory chambering then the 9.3 Barsness Sisk on the 350 case, and then the 6.5 PRC . Was it throated shorter than SAAMI, or just worked out most accurate loaded that way ?
The 6.5 PRC chamber is SAAMI standard--but the action's magazine is too short to allow bullets to be seated out to the SAAMI max of 2.950" overall length. Instead of installing a longer magazine, I decided to test how the rifle would shoot with bullets seated to fit in the magazine--and it turned out the two I wanted to use most (the 127 Barnes LRX and 129 Nosler AccuBond Long Range) were noticeably more accurate when seated deeper.
I might need a hint as to where it was most recently published, Though it does sound somehow vaguely familiar. I could’ve skimmed over it less than a month ago
As it turns out I’m going on gopher safari over the next few days, reassured by the panache of my principal shooting irons, a couple of late 40’s BRNO Model 1 & 3 . In .22LR
When I’ve taken time to observe carefully , they clearly are Controlled Feeders ! And I am Re-Assured by that.
Complaining about push feed vs. CRF is just baloney. If CRF were more reliable they'd use it for new military rifle designs. They haven't since 1898.
You see all the know-nothings say that PF cannot feed upside down (not true), that PF extractors break (has nothing to do with the PF design), that PF bolt handles break off (same thing), and similar ridiculous things.
I've killed four species of DG in Africa with a push feed action, Several required fast feeding. All with a PF action. The only failure-to-feed was in Wyoming with a Model 98 action.
How about the 1903 Springfield, 1917 Enfield and 303 SMLE ? They all were CRF, for very good reasons ! The problem was not mechanical, but human foibles
The SMLE is a push feed, and I was informed by a well known Enfield collector the other day that the 1917 was designed to single feed as well Cat
I suspect at least some of the reported failures with 98s involve ones that have been re-barreled to cartridges “outside the family” without proper fitting. With so many bazillions out there, many made under wartime conditions, some doubtless squeaked through without proper fitting as well. Only had one converted military, and it came with a short follower, but no mag block, so had issues. The smith who sold it to me fixed it right up.
Still, I’ve come to appreciate good push-feeds too. What works works.
When JB writes an article, you feel you are right there with him testing the rifle, that’s the difference between a great writer and a average writer in my opinion.
The SMLE is a push feed, and I was informed by a well known Enfield collector the other day that the 1917 was designed to single feed as well Cat
The British manuals of the late 1800s/early 1900s were written or approved by senior officers who were trained with single shot rifles as cadets. We are products of our generation, so when Lee Enfields were created, they were fitted with magazine cutoffs. It was a piece of metal that slid over the magazine and prevented cartridges from being chambered from the mag.
Standard training back then was for soldiers to single feed - just like Martinis. It was thought that controlled fire could be maintained with an NCO/jr officer controlling the load/fire sequence in battle. It also prevented wasting ammunition. Feeding from the magazine was for "exigent circumstances only". IOW, when shtf.
Added: "Failures" of push feed rifles throughout history were almost always those of a man, not the mechanism.
Complaining about push feed vs. CRF is just baloney. If CRF were more reliable they'd use it for new military rifle designs. They haven't since 1898.
You see all the know-nothings say that PF cannot feed upside down (not true), that PF extractors break (has nothing to do with the PF design), that PF bolt handles break off (same thing), and similar ridiculous things.
I've killed four species of DG in Africa with a push feed action, Several required fast feeding. All with a PF action. The only failure-to-feed was in Wyoming with a Model 98 action.
How about the 1903 Springfield, 1917 Enfield and 303 SMLE ? They all were CRF, for very good reasons ! The problem was not mechanical, but human foibles
The SMLE is a push feed, and I was informed by a well known Enfield collector the other day that the 1917 was designed to single feed as well Cat
If you actually understand CRF vrs PF you will recognize that the SMLE most certainly has a CRF mechanism. The large Mauser extractor is not the only way to achieve that !
The lawsuit which resulted in the U.S. paying Mauser royalties mostly involved the Mauser top insertion clip, not the action itself. Though there were certainly some similarities between the actions, there were enough differences to avoid that issue.
The 1917 Enfield was considerably different from the Lee-Enfield action, with more resemblance to a cock-on-closing pre-98 Mauser action.
Well.... I made a few attempts to shorten my sig line but I was 16 characters OVER the limit so I could NOT use your quote. I tried.
[/quote] If you actually understand CRF vrs PF you will recognize that the SMLE most certainly has a CRF mechanism. The large Mauser extractor is not the only way to achieve that ! [/quote]
Yep, and many people make this mistake. In fact, when the original Ruger 77 appeared, with a "Mauser-type extractor," a few of the supposedly professional gun writers of the era assumed it was CRF--when it was push-feed.
The so-called "controlled push-feed" Model 70 action for the WSSM rounds is CRF, and basically a copy of the M1 Garand's system.
I might need a hint as to where it was most recently published, Though it does sound somehow vaguely familiar. I could’ve skimmed over it less than a month ago
I have written about it more than once, probably first in a story for SUCCESSFUL HUNTER magazine about grizzly hunting, and then again in an article for another magazine about repeat shooting. The first became a chapter in my 2011 book BORN TO HUNT, a collection of hunting stories, and the second a chapter in THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II, titled "Shoot 'Em Again."
A description of the "slap" method is included in the "Shoot 'Em Again" chapter in GUN GACK II. I have described it elsewhere, but that's probably the most available source.
Would also like to comment that it is very possible to jam a typical Mauser-extractor CRF action by short-stroking, contrary to what some shooters believe.
[/quote] If you actually understand CRF vrs PF you will recognize that the SMLE most certainly has a CRF mechanism. The large Mauser extractor is not the only way to achieve that !
Yep, and many people make this mistake. In fact, when the original Ruger 77 appeared, with a "Mauser-type extractor," a few of the supposedly professional gun writers of the era assumed it was CRF--when it was push-feed.
The so-called "controlled push-feed" Model 70 action for the WSSM rounds is CRF, and basically a copy of the M1 Garand's system. [/quote] So how does the SMLE qualifies as a CRF action John, I don't understand . Cat
So how does the SMLE qualifies as a CRF action John, I don't understand . Cat
It actually can do both. Feeding from the magazine, as you push the bolt forward the bottom edge of the bolt face pushes the cartridge forward out of the magazine and the case head slides up the bolt face, under the extractor, as you drive the bolt home. If you stop before the bolt goes all the way forward, and pull it back, it will bring the round with it and eject it. This is CRF.
It will also function as PF, if you drop a round on the follower (or cutoff for those rifles that have one). When you push the bolt forward it pushes the round into the chamber, and as the bolt closes the extractor snaps over the rim. This is something an unmodified Mauser 98 won't do, as the extractor is not designed to snap over the rim.
So how does the SMLE qualifies as a CRF action John, I don't understand . Cat
It actually can do both. Feeding from the magazine, as you push the bolt forward the bottom edge of the bolt face pushes the cartridge forward out of the magazine and the case head slides up the bolt face, under the extractor, as you drive the bolt home. If you stop before the bolt goes all the way forward, and pull it back, it will bring the round with it and eject it. This is CRF.
It will also function as PF, if you drop a round on the follower (or cutoff for those rifles that have one). When you push the bolt forward it pushes the round into the chamber, and as the bolt closes the extractor snaps over the rim. This is something an unmodified Mauser 98 won't do, as the extractor is not designed to snap over the rim.
My push feed Savage will eject if I pull it put before fully chambering as well, interesting fir sure. Cat
I mentioned earlier that it is indeed possible to jam a CRF action by short-stroking. Saw one example of this around 15 years ago, when custom gunsmith Charlie Sisk started an annual field-shooting school for his customers on a ranch in South Texas. I was invited to show up early (along with several other "industry" people, including guides) to help set up and tweak the shooting stations, and because I shot the initial "dangerous game" station quicker than anybody else, was chosen to improve it, and be the instructor.
Eventually the event grew big enough that I improved the "charging Cape buffalo" station to a life-sized target run on rails, using an ATV to tow it from behind some bushes about 50-60 yards away. The target ran closely past the shooting station, and it was rare for anybody except very practiced shooters to get three shots off before the target came past. (I managed to do it twice in a row with Finn Aaagard's old .375 H&H, which Berit brought to the event. The action was pretty slicked up by long use!)
The event also offered various prizes, which eventually included a Tanzanian safari as first prize. There were also no restrictions on cartridge or rifle--or who would shoot. As a result, the last year one of the contestants (who owned a nice airplane, with a hired pilot) chose the pilot to shoot the contest. He was a guy about 30, who was a good shot--and the rifle his boss chose was a CRF .308 Winchester, which in theory would be faster to use due to lower recoil than, say, a .375 H&H.
Obviously the young guy was under a lot of pressure, perhaps almost as much as during a real buffalo charge. He short-stroked the action on the first run, which partially picked up another round due to friction, despite that theoretically not being possible, and jammed it tight. So he did not even place. (Do not know whether he retained his pilot job.)
But he was using the standard method of grabbing the bolt-knob in a death grip. I suspect if he'd used the slap method (or practiced more) he might have done better. But have seen the same thing happen now and then with other CRF actions, especially where the hunter hasn't practiced much--or is under pressure.
We've had this conversation before, but it is worth noting (again) that the "slap" method seems to be one which only has currency in the US. Here, and in Europe (including Britain) the ball and socket grip on the bolt knob seems to be the go. In fact in military training here the "palming" of the bolt was actively and vigorously discouraged.
You don't want a "death grip" though - the wrist in particular needs to flex, so that the opening and closing consists of two movements, not four: One more or less diagonally up and back, and one forward and down. You work it like you mean it. There's a lot less lost motion than with palming or the "slap" method. You see it in videos of Stanskyting competition, where often they'll also use another technique I learned as a kid: keeping hold of the bolt knob in the ball and socket grip and tripping the trigger with the middle finger each time the bolt locks closed.
I suppose the main thing though, regardless of which method you use, you need to practice it, so that it is a matter of muscle memory and so that you can do it reliably under pressure. No doubt you have seen many examples of people fumbling this under pressure, as I have, because they haven't practiced.
Here we are fortunate to have plenty of opportunities to practice. As well as service rifle competition, using bolt actions, which has such things as double snap and rapid serials (a lot of fun) we have lots of ferals, with no closed season and no bag limits. Knocking several pigs out of a mob before they make cover is a good test of how slick is your rifle handling. I've dropped as many as eight out of a mob, including stuffing additional rounds in as I ran to keep them in view.
I have seen the competition shooting where one finger remains on the trigger, and have practiced it myself--with short-action rifles, especially rimfires. Can also see how it would work with my shorter-action rifles.
But cannot compehennd how it would with, say, the .375 H&H or similar length cartridges. If you have any insights on this would appreciate them.
The middle finger doesn't need to remain on the trigger. Indeed, as you've noticed, with a long throw action you can't do it, even if you have hands as big as mine. The point to it is that thumb and forefinger stay on the bolt knob the whole time, and in order to do this the middle finger trips the trigger, as soon as the bolt knob reaches the end of its travel.
A description of the "slap" method is included in the "Shoot 'Em Again" chapter in GUN GACK II. I have described it elsewhere, but that's probably the most available source.
Would also like to comment that it is very possible to jam a typical Mauser-extractor CRF action by short-stroking, contrary to what some shooters believe.
Cool. I'll go back and read it again. Thanks for the come back.
I might need a hint as to where it was most recently published, Though it does sound somehow vaguely familiar. I could’ve skimmed over it less than a month ago
I have written about it more than once, probably first in a story for SUCCESSFUL HUNTER magazine about grizzly hunting, and then again in an article for another magazine about repeat shooting. The first became a chapter in my 2011 book BORN TO HUNT, a collection of hunting stories, and the second a chapter in THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II, titled "Shoot 'Em Again."
Ch 26 of The Big Book of Big Game Hunting, Backing Up Dangerous Game Clients Describes this Grizzly encounter, but not the clever phrase in the OPs post.
Perhaps not “Crazy” per se, but most definitely Loony
Perhaps there is still time to take advantage of the Fathers Day sale at R&R ... Born to Hunt awaits
MD - if you had it to do again, Would you rather convert a CRF action ( such as WSM M70 or Kimber 8400) to the 9.3 BS ?
I’m currently on the lookout for a CZ550 in 9.3x62
That said, the method I learned from John Wootters is probably just about as quick, since pushing the bolt forward is done with the web of the right hand between the thumb and forefinger--which results in the forefinger sliding down right into the trigger guard.
Though it would be interesting to do a side-by-side comparison.... :-)
Yes, running it against the clock, using a PACT timer or something similar, would be the ultimate test. FWIW as well as hunting I have run against the clock a good number of times in competition, and it is a good truth-teller. The additional bit of pressure of competition and a timer also tends to find out other issues with technique, rifle reliability and your performance under stress. So too of course does a critter galloping at you ;-)
FWIW here's a bit of benchmarking. The Bloke got down to a bit over 6 seconds for 10 rounds, using a much modded Lee Enfield. These do lend themselves to fast operation, and you'll see how other actions fared in comparison:
You might also find this one interesting, where he talks about the technique. There's also a consideration of the "palming" technique from about 9:25. While he's mostly using the Lee Enfield as an example, he does also look at the Tikka. FWIW I use the ball and socket technique for all bolt actions, and anything which puts the bolt knob down near enough to the trigger also lends itself to the middle finger tripping technique.
Also very interesting! Though I seem to recall having seen the Lee-Enfield video (or something very much like it) before.
However, the occasions when I've HAD to shoot fast (and furious?) have all been offhand, at moving targets--which tends to slow aiming down compared to shooting from, say, prone. The actions have also often been somewhat longer, for cartridges such as the .375 H&H and .416 Rigby.
Though I don't think the extra length makes much difference, even compared to what's generally known as a "short" action these days.....
I’ve got a fair number of examples of both PFs and CRFs that I use with equal success, but a finely tuned CRF just brings a smile to my face. Brass almost silently sliding on steel and knowing that round has chambered by friction not the mechanics of the extractor snapping over the rim and the ejector being compressed. Like I said, I don’t dislike PFs, I’ve competed in long range with 700s where operating a bolt without a bobble is the difference between success and a disappointing day, but hunting big game with a CRF is sort of a cult like experience.
Is a M1 Garland a true CRF?
I didn’t see see anyone mention one of the best CRFs, the Savage 99.
That smile that derives from a well tuned CRF is the essence of Panache. The stock has to fit, and point naturally of course. But it starts in the action.
Go ahead and Slap Feed your PF 700. The Odds of the bolt breaking off are minuscule ; After the first hundred or so vigorous cycles of the action of course.
We are all becoming victims of the cheaper manufacturing processes that have come to dominate the industry.
[/quote]MD - if you had it to do again, Would you rather convert a CRF action ( such as WSM M70 or Kimber 8400) to the 9.3 BS ?
I’m currently on the lookout for a CZ550 in 9.3x62 [/quote]
338Rules,
Sorry I missed this one.
If I had to do the 9.3 B-S all over again, would do the same thing I did--partly because I already owned and a had hunted considerably with a CZ 550 9.3x62, which fed perfectly from day one. Eventually had it restocked, but that's another story--though will mention that after buying the CZ 9.3x62 in 2001, my custom FN Mauser .338 Winchester Magnum and semi-custom Mark X Mauser .375 H&H haven't seen much field time.
When Charlie Sisk built the first two 9.3 B-S rifles, he built his on a WSM M70 action--and in fact I took a big game animal with it before using my 700-actioned rifle in the field, probably because Charlie got his rifle done first. Back then he ran a shooting school for his customers every winter, and I took part in that--and as "payment" I got to take an animal on the ranch where we set up the school. Didn't bother flying down with one of my own rifles, since there would be plenty available, so used Charlie's Model 70 to take an axis buck, using his 286-grain Nosler Partition load, because due to using that bullet considerably in the 9.3x62, knew it wouldn't shoot up much (if any) of the delicious axis venison. It worked just like we expected it would--like a 9.3x62, dropping the buck right there at about 125 yards, with minimal meat damage. But after that I used either my 700 or CZ 9.3x62.
MD Thanks for your reply. Diplomatically Insightful, as Always.
From your site, It looks like “Born to Hunt “ is going to be available in an e-book format in the next few months. I look forward to seeing that. I hope the rewards outweigh the headaches !
