This just appeared in the latest SUCCESSFUL HUNTER. Written by a very well respected and experienced African PH. Finally, someone willing to state the obvious.

1. "Modern premium bullets make the 270 Winchester into the all-around plains game cartridge."

2. "If something is more than 350 yards away, I contend no one has any ethical business shooting unless the game is wounded."

3. Too many clients are arriving overgunned and under practiced.

A .270 Winchester using premium bullets makes a superb hunting rifle but I could never own another after using a .30/06.

I really liked that article. It jived with what I saw in South Africa. Land owners and PH's using 270s with premium bullets.

Rick,

Yeah, I saw that article, and wasn't surprised. Have met and talked to him some, and he's a very practical guy.

My experience is that even with a "primitive" bullet like the 150-grain Partition the .270 works very well on plains game (and elk, moose, etc. as well), but we have a pile of good .270 bullets these days.

John,
I am going to use 150 or 160 partitions on this coming trip. I am wondering how they will compare to what I have been using.

Aussie,
He likes the 30-06 as well. Both really great. I have no experience with the 30-06. I like 6.75# rifles and the 270 is a little more shootable at that weight but will concede it is really one of the top three available worldwide the other being the
7mm Rem.

Would you kindly explain that? Is it personal preference?

Good post.

Have not seen the article but am not surprised by any of this.

Rick,

I'll be interested to hear.

Eileen and I have used a variety premium bullets in various .270's, including Fail Safes, TSX's, Speer Grand Slams (the dual-core version) and 130 and 150-grain Partitions. Haven't checked my notes but have no doubt the Fail Safes and TSX's exited more often, but all have killed well.

In fact the "quickest deadest" I've seen a bull moose killed was with the 150 Partition, and though the bullet was recovered (an angling shot from the rear left ribs to the right shoulder) the bull took a step and half before dropping dead. Have seen the same thing on African plains game, and when Craig Boddington finally decided he had to use the .270 Winchester on an elk, after years of saying his preference was for bigger bullets, he used the 150 Partition. Turned out the shot was the longest he'd yet taken on a bull (it was a good 6-point, on the Whittington Center), a little over 400 yards--and the bull died quicker than any he'd previously shot as well. I seem to remember the bullet exited, but could be wrong.

Of course, Craig went back to using larger cartridges after that, but you don't read anything about the .270 being a little light for elk in his writings anymore....

I also enjoyed the article. The first one I've really enjoyed in a long time.

Count me in as someone who is interested in your thoughts.

I've never taken a bull elk with a .270, but I have used the .280AI a good bit and it kills them just fine so then should the .270. I've killed many bull elk and other BG with 300mags, 7RM and the .280AI and I can not see a difference in killing power, depth of penetration, or size and extent of the wound channel etc. Maybe I'm just not very observant. BTW in most cases I've used Nosler Partitions.

On the way to Namibia last month I got to talk to a bunch of US hunters during the overnight in Jo'berg. I recall the ones I asked had a 338WM as their PG rifle. Except for women and kids, who brought 270s.
Got some inquisitive looks when I mentioned our 7x57 and 303Br.

Pete

Just like JB always says, men can't kill big game with light rifles, but women and children can��..

I don't have the article in front of me, but I was intrigued by the idea of having four (?) different types of optics ready for near immediate use with one rifle, with quick release rings.

Sounds like a wise man, that JB.

While I'm a long way from being the elk hunter that many here are, I have killed some. With a 7mm Rem Mag, .300 Win Mag, .350 Rem Mag, but more than any other cartridge a .270 Win. all but one of the .270 elk were with 150 NPTs the other was with a 150gr Speer grand slam and as an previous poster said, with the double core bullet. I've been killing ungulates for 65 years [not near done yet] and am in the camp of "shoot em' in the chest and go gut em'" The biggest dead bull I've ever touched was killed by a 16 year old with a .257 Roberts and an 87gr sierra.

I used to cull a lot, read that as thousands of animals, particularly when reviewing rifles where my habit was to develop loads at the range and then take the rifle to the bush.

In a great many side by side tests you don;t see a terrible lot of difference between various cartridges, particularly on deer sized feral animals but one trip in particular stood out in my memory and that was when I was clearing the shelves of old handloads and factory ammo that had been provided for review.

Some factory loads are several hundred fps below handloading capability and on this particular trip I noticed that the .30/05 killed very uniformly which was gaged by the % of animals stopped in their tracks either dead or incapacitated and unable to move further.

Some of the loads were pathetic such as 150gn loads at around 2600fps MV in the '06 but still worked as well as the .270 with warmer loads. I put that down to a caliber advantage as being more demonstrable than the velocity aspect when directed similarly.

Obviously bullet choices make a difference but I am averaging out results which I think is a more independent way of assessing differences. One off wonder shots don't prove much over time. We have all had those.

I used the .270 a lot since the 70's and never used the .30/06 until the late 80's as I was firmly in the Magnum Mania Phase, still am, with some cartridges.

My current .30/06 is fast dying with the barrel shot out. It has taken an awful lot of animals and developed a lot of handloads but it will be re-barreled with another .30/06 tube I have on hand in the not so distant future.

So what is it about the 270 that leads people to practice more?

I am not familiar with the guy. Is he usually right about 60% of the time?

It is funny how number 1 is so written in stone, and the next two use weasel words like "I contend" and "ethical" and "Too Many"

Well I contend the ethical limit is 378 yards, and just enough clients show up under gunned and over practiced.

So what does he recommend for people who want to afford to practice and therefore want a round that works with cup and core bullets? Because I contend the cost of premium bullets is a huge factor in the lack of practice.

I read his stuff before and it is really second rate.

And I think we could add: "One off FAILURE shots don't prove much over time. We have all had those", as well.

Not much is proved in either case as to the suitability, or lack thereof, of a particular cartridge or bullet!

Physics is still a definitive reality apart from personal attachment or emotion over a particular cartridge - caliber.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Finally a title I can live with

I've always been a little sceered to use such a light rifle for hunting consequently I had to have my 10-year-old try it first. (If you think that means I'm going to try it second, think again.) (I still haven't.)



All KIC (keyboard in cheek) of course

When in doubt, always go with a writer that can't afford a last name and a gunsmith with an apostrophe in theirs.

'Flave?



Travis

Ross Seyfried came to the same conclusion some years ago in his article, "Busting the Magnum Myth".

Here's a link: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-busting-the-magnum-myth/

Ross certainly had some fine things to say about the .300 H & H..

Ross made his living as a writer and if you happened to read his articles over the years you saw many contradictions as he also wrote glowing things about various magnum rifles and seemed particularly fond of the 340 Wby.

Don Heath, "Ganyana", on the other hand not only reports on his extensive experience, but also addresses documented experiences of many others.

No issues friend... I use both cartridges. I was curious what your negative 270 experience was.

Ross Seyrfried changed his mind about the necessity of big cartridges on Elk ... Whether it was an epiphany or not we don't know.

I will say this, I don't think that well-heeled sportsmen hunting in Africa are necessarily a good representation of the typical American hunter. Maybe it is just a regional thing but virtually every hunter I know practices for a 300-400 yd shot and expects to have to take one. You can usually get closer but for someone to blatantly state that it is unethical to shoot beyond 350 yards turns me off. Maybe shooting elephants and buffalo beyond 350 yards is unethical but where do we draw the line? Is it unethical to shoot an unwounded woodchuck at 500 yards? Maybe African game is afforded higher life status than American game.

I don't doubt that many shooters show up over gunned and under practiced however.

Good point. With the variety of bullets available in any, at least somewhat common caliber, any half capable handloader can stretch a cartridge both up and down the spectrum of game size. I shoot small game with specialty loads in a .350RM. Several here shoot deer with specialty loads in .223R. Is a cartridge really an ideal choice for the game if it can only perform well with a specialty load?

I guess that I don't consider a cartridge ideal for a given game unless the guy that doesn't handload can go buy a standard grade box of factory ammo in the right bullet weight and have it be a reliable and humane round with which to take the game. The plus for the handloader is that these 'ideal' cartridges work well with plain and cheap Hornady and Speer bullets.

Oh, there was no offense taken. I thought you were genuinely interested, so I put a little more in the response. Hope it helps outline the way I think on these things.
John

That is a great way to look at it, standard ammo, not premium ammo, is the real word way to judge a cartridge.

Truer words were never said,especially number 2 and 3.

Why is that?

There was a popular writer who, a few years ago, stated that the M16/AR type rifle was not much of a hunting rifle as far as he was concerned. He was vilified, crucified, and lost his way of making a living. He was accused of being anti-gun.

I doubt if any single professional writer, who is also a hunter, will ever criticize the "long-range hunting" thing, for fear of a vocal minority backlash. The interest in long range shooting is driving profit margins for the entire rifle shooting industry. The statistics show that there are very few new "hunters" but many new "shooters". The new shooters, who account for over 80% of new buyers, are gearing up for long-range and are buying AR's along with iPhones. Both are potent consumer symbols.

I am all for this new interest in shooting. A marketing manager for a large company recently told me that few of those shooters will ever hunt. They go out and shoot at things a long ways away. This tactical long range stuff is the source of big profit margins and growth, along with the AR's.

However, I am with Mr. Heath. Long range shooting at game is not hunting. Baseball and golf are great games because of the rules not despite them.

That is a great question.

And when in the world did my ability to practice with "standard ammo" become dependant on what cartridge I am shooting?

Well said Rick. Now I assume there will be someone along shortly to say something like "just because you can't" or some such nonsense.

I have shot a few head of game at distances past 350 yds. All with modest scopes and sported weight rifles. And all under ideal circumstances. One stands out though and it taught me a valuable lesson. It was a self guided Bighorn that I could not get closer than 430 yds to. I set up a bench rest type arrangement on flat ground with a pack and had made that shot numerous times at inanimate objects before. But when the moment of truth arrived and I tripped the trigger he moved (more like lunged). I saw him move but it was too late. I hit him too far back and it was a bit of a rodeo before I finished the job. All of the practice in the world could not correct that type of a scenario.

I don't know a damned thing about anything in Africa.

But in the mountains of west or central Idaho, a working man had better be prepared to take a 400 yd shot, or else be content with a freezer which spends many years void of game.

If you push that 150 gr Partition to 2900 fps from the 270, it is down to 2150 fps at 400 yds. Similar to a 30-30 at 50 yds. Sure, it will kill an elk.

But I consider it valuable insurance that my STW is still pushing a 160 to 2600 fps at 400 yds.

Idaho shooter
You are correct, velocity makes bullets work...if those bullets are properly placed.

I live in south Idaho so know what you mean. However, if it was just for meat most hunters would likely be better off selling their pickup, 4 wheeler, tent trailer, horses...and go to a farmer and buy half a beef.

Sport hunting must involve two things, at least for me. 1. There has to be a confrontation with the beast. 2. The beast must have an opportunity to beat me.

The animal's senses must give it a chance to outmaneuver me and escape. My biggest thrills and challenges have been when things get up close.

Much of this "long range hunting" is way too abstract and so removed there is no confrontation. It reminds me of a video game where the are two boxers. No risk of loss...no skin in the game.

Once I went to a school to learn to fight with knives. You stood within feet of your opponent. Both of us used marking pens rather than blades. Man it gave me a new view of men who went to battle with swords and axes. Scared the hell out of me but was exhilarating as well.

This long distance stuff is more like a game built on technology. Are the warriors who fought toe to toe with swords the same "warriors" who sit in bunkers in the Nevada and kill someone in Asia by piloting a drone? I think not. The latter may be necessary but it is not the same as real combat.

I'll just add that Don Heath has earned the right to his opinions. He's not only a highly trained wildlife biologist who's worked in the field, but has served extensively as a PH and as a teacher in Zimbabwe's highly-respected PH school. In fact as I recall he was head of the school for many years, and is now a contultant for a major ammo and bullet company, among many things. Between his guiding and some of the necessary culling of big game done by the Zimbabwe game department, his experience is vast, and his perspective interesting, since it also includes considerable original research into the history of African hunting. His comments in the article are also on African safari hunters, not anything else.

If some American hunter has different opinions, why that's their obvious right. But anybody who finds "Ganyana's" writing substandard or irrelevant is obviously not interested in anything beyond their own limited perspective, but that's true of not only many hunters but many humans.

I've met Don on several instances and he is indeed a great individual and he knows his stuff. The PH school John speaks about is without question, the most rigorous in the industry and I'll also add that besides being an accomplished PH and author, he is a rifle and bullet loonie as well!

Well said

Excellent points.

I'm gonna try and broadsword a mulie this year.

"THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"



Travis

I would add that most places in Zimbabwe (Zambia and Southern Tanzania are somewhat similar) have vegetation often referred to as thornbrush. This would include Mopane and Miombo woodlands. In practical terms this means there are few places where a 350+ yard shot is a possibility. Most animals are shot at less than 100 yards and not uncommonly through holes in the vegetation.

This might have something to do with Mr Heath's comments. I realize that in other countries like South Africa and Namibia there are very open areas where long shots might be useful.

To me these make more sense.

As has been pointed out, modern premiums create a "high tide effect" increasing the effectiveness of ALL cartridges. 'Standard' is vague I know, but most will know what is meant... 270/280/7RM/308/30-06...

I have witnessed hunters who had no business taking shots at game farther than the end of their barrel. Point of #2 ought to be, IMHO, along the lines of the classic, "a man's gotta know his limitations." For instance, I have no doubt that Darrel Holland can make an ethical hit at longer distances than me, whether all things are equal or not.

I have also witnessed hunters who had no business taking shots at game farther away than the end of the barrel who thought that a mag, super, or UBBER mag, could remedy the issue. That is to say, I have no doubt that #3 is true.

All that having been said, the author cited in the OP has a lot more credibility than I do in making such proclamations.

And too many American hunters seldom get off the bench.

Ain't that the truth!

Your rewording of #2 would make it tough on a new hunter.

Not necessarily. A new hunter should practice killing targets first, anyway.

Too many of them seldom get off the couch as well.

Well I don't personally know the fellow and I'll take you word he is a swell fella, but if he is stymied by a 400yd shot I would not consider him much of an authority on rifles nor bullets.

Don also happens to be a pretty formidable shot with both handguns and rifles and is one of the top competitive handgun shooters in Zimbabwe.

I am a huge 270 fan, but fully realize that premium bullets have raised the bar on all cartridges.

John,

If you'd read the article, you'd find he frequently shoots beyond 350 yards--or meters, since he uses both in the article, which may or may not be due to editing by someone else. But he shoot baboons beyond 350 y/m, and since baboons atre even spookier than coyotes after they've been shot at, and normally run in groups, I would bet he's pretty good.

CRS,

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he specifically mentioned the .270 because so many Americans think it's too small for plains game, having been brainwashed by too many American gun writers over the decades.

He also specifically mentions what premium bullets have done for the .30-06, and also that the .243 Winchester is very popular among African hunters for plains game up to and including kudu.

I always love these long threads that dissect magazine articles few posters have even read. usually they begin just like this one, with somebody quoting a little of it, or even summarizing a 2500-word article in two sentences. Immediately a bunch of people try to rip it apart, despite never reading the damn thing.

In fact that's why I first posted many years ago, after lurking for six months. Somebody summarized one of my articles inaccurately, though he liked it, and of course the pile-on began. I posted a reply, suggesting the pilers actually read the article, and providing some specific reason. Somebody figured out exactly why I knew so much about the article, and now I've been reading the same sort of thing for 13 years.

My only point was that the unequivocal ""If something is more than 350 yards away, I contend no one has any ethical business shooting unless the game is wounded." statement. If he made it, is not something a knowledgeable rifle shooter would state.

It really is no different than some newbie LR shooter saying a 500yd shot is a chip shot and anyone who can't make that shot is a poor shooter.

Both types of statements pretend that distance is the only factor in any shot and every 350yd shot or every 500yd shot is the same regardless of shooter skill, equipment, shooting conditions or the time for the shot. I have passed a bunch of shoots inside 350yds due to factors that had nothing to do with the distance and it is the mark of the inexperienced marksman to think distance is the end all and be all of shooting. I would much rather have plenty of time and good conditions at 400yds than time pressure and a 40 MPH wind at 250yds.

I have seen way more bad shooting due to time pressure than distance. I reckon it is possible to teach a monkey to hit at 400yds with good equipment and lots of time but few and far between are hunters who can, on demand, hit quickly under pressure.



Actually you are dramatically mischaracterizing Jim Zumbo's statements. Jim actually said the AR-15 was a "terrorist rifle" and "I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods ". I am pretty sure the past few years have shown the stupidity of those statements. Trying to change history to make a point does none of us any good.



JB,

I was simply commenting on the OPs quotes. I have not read the article. If the OP misquoted the article then take my comments to be directed at the OP.

He didn't misquote anything. But you might want to read the article anyway.

I read this in Fair Chase magazine this evening.

"When someone boasts of killing from afar, I'm tempted to console him: "Cheer up; you'll get closer next time." '
-Wayne van Zwoll

Now that's a signature line...

I don't know him either. Maybe he could be both a hunter and a rifleman?

Been wondering who this Don Heath fella is for awhile now...

Link to a different article by Heath:

Rifle Lessons Learned from the Zimbabwe Professional Hunter Proficiency Exam

Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions.

Just the way it is.

As much as I get annoyed by the attacks on long range stuff around here this is just as ignorant.

There are different sorts of hunting, rifles, and bullets one needs to be an expert in different places.

Similarly there are different styles/methods of hunting one can engage in... Some near opposites, even in identical areas for identical species, and all may be called "authorities".

That is to say, you're just as ridiculous sounding calling this guy's credentials into question because he doesn't agree with you on this as others here are for doing the same thing to you.



Thanks Jordan that is exactly what I was getting at.

Trying as I did illustrated the difficulty of wring three points that are truly universal like that. So many qualifiers...

I'd say that from what I've seen of the average hunter he did a good job.

Where did he say that? The piece wasn't written for him; he wrote it for others. If you think his generalizations untrue generally then you haven't been around average hunters much.

"Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions.

Just the way it is. shocked"

This may come as a shock, but some folks have no interest in making 400yd shots(even if they can), as they prefer having excellent hunting/stalking skills, as opposed to simply being a good shot. This however, does not mean they aren't also a good shot. They've just made a choice to, and enjoy, getting in close, before shooting.

Just the way it is.

Jeff

This has gotten way out of hand- but at least we aren't calling him names yet.

Wait a bit...

A little defensiveness showing, John?

While I haven't exactly adhered to the good advice in the brief quotation in every respect, I surely understand the whys and wherefores and can appreciate them. It seems #2 is the biggest stumbling block for those who take issue with the fellow's opinions. I suspect most people who have taken shots at longer distances on game animals know quite well, even if they don't like to admit it publicly, that there have been instances where things have, or could have, gone badly very easily. Second shot challenges are not simplified as distances are extended. As advice goes, it's really pretty hard to fault I think.

The Heath article linked to above, was blunt and brutal. While the rigors of American hunting are not as "tough" as Africa, one wonders if there is anything out there that is suitable for the dark continent. Everything he wrote referenced back to older models or newer ones tuned properly by talented gunsmiths.
Very interesting read.

As with most generalizations, this one has lots of room for error.

So there were no riflemen before long range became all the rage?

I thought Denis' post was great and well thought out. I'm in agreement with both of you guys. Of course, I grew up not too far away (northern Nevada) from you and learned/practiced shooting longrange from an early age. Every ethical hunter should know where to draw the line as far as range limitations are concerned. To say it's "unethical" to shoot past 350 yards, is plain and simple BS...

I have read Ross's articles since the 80's and I never saw a contradiction, rather I saw a change as bullets changed over the course of time. I believe he stated "I have to rethink my position"

:::SIGH:::

JB, How's this?



I concur

I am a huge 270 fan and have never ever thought the 270 was lacking for plains game. I guess I read too many JOC stories and have seen too much game properly put in the freezer with it.

I (personally) am not a fan of long range hunting. I challenge myself to get close. That is what I prefer, some prefer to challenge themselves with their equipment and stretch the limits. I also think that there is a unspoken downside of LR hunting that results in unrecovered and wounded animals.

I learned early on circa 1982, that magnumitis is not good. When a gentleman carrying a 7mm Rem Mag scoffed at our 270's and proceeded to wound deer, while our tags slowly got punched.
Was it the cartridges fault? not per say, but the perception of instant death and recoil quite possibly could have been factors in not becoming proficient with his rifle.

It was right there in the OP. The part where he said "I contend no one" would be construed by any sane person familiar with the English language to include himself.



To call that unequivocal statement a "generalization" is a misstatement on your part to try and bolster a failing argument. If you "feel" that the average guy should not shoot past 350yds I won't argue with you, as you are entitled to your feelings.

On the other hand if somebody wants to throw out ridiculous unequivocal statements I have been known to offer up my opinion, which might be in the form of an unequivocal statement.



Reach has always been "all the rage".

All the major developments in rifles have come as an effort to extend the reach of the rifleman. I suspect there were a few who felt rifling was a fad and the 75 yd reach of their smoothbore was plenty.

To be, unequivocally, stymied by a 400yd shot is the mark of a duffer.

That would be my opinion in the form of an unequivocal statement some might find ridicules or possibly somewhat inflammatory.

While I am picking on the quotes could someone explain which "modern" bullets transformed the .270 Win and what happens when we shoot "less modern" bullets in the .270 Win.

By less modern I am referring to the kinds of bullets Jack O'Connor used on plains game in Africa or when my Dad was killing elk back in the 70s with the .270 Win.

I as sort of unaware that the .270 Win was previously unable to humanly kill plains game sized critters before "modern bullets".

I think I was a tad generous with the 60%.

That is a pretty harsh assessment of a man who made his living with a rifle.

My view of a good rifleman is a person that remains calm while shooting a buffalo or an elephant at 25 feet and can do it quickly and efficiently. Don is one of those guys.

IMO that takes more practice and nerve than shooting an animal at 800 yards.

I have shot more than most at 600, 800, 900, and 1000 yards so I do have a good understanding what is required.

If you want to hunt long range have at it, it is none of my business, but do insult a man you do not know, much less understand what is required to be a good rifleman in his part of the world.

Please quote accurately my "assessment" of Don Heath.

ps. I make my living with a rifle.

Completely different mindsets on completely different continents. Problem is that this article was in a US publication (I am assuming here) and maybe it was geared towards American hunter traveling to Africa but many of us, based on the posted quote, are feeling that it is directed to any hunter, anywhere. If that is what he intended then for all the good things he is, he is shortsighted. If it was not intended as that well then we are getting worked up over nothing.

Long rangers sure are a sensitive lot!

John, your line I quoted above confuses the ability to make a shot with the judgment and ethics of making it. The writer was clearly referring to the latter.

IME here on the 'fire, that shifting of the topic from ethics to ability is a standard talking point for long rangers: to accuse anyone who questions them with inability to make such a shot.

Shoot all you want as far as you want. You are a terrific long range shot. You don't need our public approval to feel good about such shooting.

Added later: Like many area of real life, hard and fast rules about shooting game need some judgment in the field. I generally agree with the writer, but don't want any law forbidding us to take long shots. As personal application of that, I killed a wounded bull elk at about 700 yards, yet prefer shots under 200 yards from a rest, and under 20 yards with a rest is even better.

John,

"Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions."

Maybe more of a snide comment than an assessment.

I do not have access to the article; however from the quote he said ethics, not his ability to do it.

Hitting at long range is no big deal if one is up to it and CHOOSES to do so. I personally CHOOSE not to. With guys like Don Heath, he probably doesn't care what you can do at 400 with a ruminant, but he will care what you can do at ten yards... BTW, my uncle went on several safaris in the late 60s/early 70s to Angola and Mozambique. He took two rifles, both Model 70s in 270 and 458. He took his lion with his 270 and old-style Silvertips. So what's the argument here, that one isn't a "hunter" if you can't score at 400? Do it at ten yards with an elephant of buffalo and get back to me..

I notice in these threads that many folks seem to feel that long range shooting of game is something new.

I remember my Dad bragging about how far away he had killed deer and elk nearly sixty years ago. In the early 60's he traded in a model 141 in 30 Rem for a 760 in 30-06 so he could reach further.

I remember asking Dad how he could possibly kill a deer at 600 yds or further with an open sighted 30-06, because I knew for a fact that the front bead subtended an area far larger than a deer at that range.

He answered, "I did not aim at the deer, I aimed at the rock on the side of the mountain twenty feet above the deer." Then he took another bite of the venison in question.

In the late sixties he equipped that 760 with a scope which cost far more than the rifle, so he could reach further.

Every hunter I knew as a kid, and young adult strived to be capable of killing meat at distances many consider extreme.

Pride in marksmanship at extreme range did not begin at Adobe Walls. Outside of sniping at humans, there has never been a better way to prove that marksmanship than killing game.

I think some of you feel that any disagreement is tantamount to a knock down drag out fight. Discussion forums are for discussions. I be discussin.

Somebody posted an unequivocal statement that I disagree with and I posted my opinions. I get to have an opinion and you can agree or disagree.

The irony of the situation was the inflammatory nature of the original quote. It is actually the "short rangers" who are sensitive and want to label others as unethical because they "feel" a certain way and want to impose their "feelings".

I might have to start a thread along the lines of " Do you suck as a shooter if you can't hit a deer at 600yds??" The butthurt would be EPIC.





Wow we went from "harsh assessment" to "snide comment" pretty fast.



Yet the quote says I am unethical to take any shot beyond 350yds. Your feeling of what the author intends does not match the actual statement.

The fact that so many are trying to reinterpret the original quote pretty much proves how it was a silly statement.



Which dovetails with my question concerning "modern bullets" in the .270 Win. My interpretation was that the author considered the .270 Win not adequate for plains game until "modern bullets" came along. I am more than a little amused at the concept that "modern bullets" have been a gamechanger for the .270 Win. It always worked fine. (Provided you did stretch to far)



To save some time I will just quote what I said in previous posts. Feel free to read them this time.






Gas please meet Fire.

John,

You have too much time on your hands.

I pretty much have quit arguing the ethics issue to a great degree. If it is legal and it does not make us (hunters) look too bad, it is not my business.

Our biggest issue in the very near future is losing our right to hunt (and fish). Piece by piece it is being taken away or at least whittled away from all different angles. Lead bullets, access to Federal land, elephant import ban, basically shutting down the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery, etc,etc.

Most hunters do not care about the issues that do not affect them. At the end of the day any closure or ban will impact all of us. We prefer to bicker amongst ourselves about what is ethical than to contact our elected officials. There is a desperate need for an NRA like organization to protect hunters with 5 million members, I hope SCI will take that roll but I have my doubts.

It is important enough to me that I flew to Washington DC and met face to face with my Congressman and one of my Senators. I actually received good feedback and they both acted on what I asked. Hopefully they will be part of making a difference.

Off the soapbox now......

I wonder if John Burns has read the article yet?

Gee thanks, but I'll take Don Heath, and as far as the modern bullet v older, conventionals go, if you don't think they've stretched and improved the capabilities of ALL calibers, then you are the one that maybe needs some more experience. Even with modern bullets, a 270 on a one ton eland is questionable at fifty yards and downright stupid at 400. And regarding the taking of a lion with one, that too, is rather foolhardy.

Seems to me you're confusing two things. In the context of his original statement he was speaking of the ethics of such shots on live targets, not his ability to hit something at said range.

He thinks it's unethical. I don't, and neither do you, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great PH, rifleman, etc.

Do you not see the irony of your comments? You say to anti-LR guys here you're no less Hunter for utilizing your rifle skills, then say this guy is less of a rifleman for utilizing his hunting skills.

Jorge,

Have you seen any eland and lion shot with a .270? Or met anyone who has?

Ross Seyfried in an article on the .270 Winchester,mentions that the most successful safari he guided was with a elderly man and his grandson. They used a .270 Win and 150 gr Nosler Partitions from lion on down.

i guess if you can kill grizzly with a bow go for it but chances are many will die.

No doubt it'd be sure to straighten them right out!

I don't remember eland John, but as to the lion, my uncle shot his with his 270, along with sable, kudu, wildebeest and a bunch of other stuff. Personally, I think a 270 is not optimum for eland.

A decent size elk weighs around 650 pounds???
A nice lion is 500 pounds.

No problem killing an elk with a 270 Win.
Should work fine on a lion.

Should work fine; however no less than a 375 H&H for me on lion.

I have crossed lion on foot in Zim and saw them from the cruiser in Mozambique and Tanzania. I am not ashamed to say they scare the crap out of me.

If I was to hunt lion,it would be with a .375 H&H and either 300 gr Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames.

Actually a friend of mine took a very large eland with a 270 and 130 grain Barnes TSX. He is a very good shot and the bullet went all the way thru, expanded and ended up just inside the skin on the off shoulder. He also took animals ranging from springbok all the way to eland and including Kudu, Blue Wildebeest, and Gemsbok with the 270. It is the only rifle he took and he has complete confidence in it.

As my friend in South Africa says often, "It is where you hit them, not what you hit them with."

Ross once told me he wouldn't hesitate to hunt cape buffalo with a 270 with a 140gr failsafe bullet.

Another hunter took him to task for that remark and his reply was lets go buff hunting and for every bull he kills with one shot with the 270 you pay for and every bull that took more than one shot he would pay for.

Put up or shut up. Well, he shut up.

Jorge,

I take it your uncle survived and the lion didn't? I know a guy who's taken a dozen lions with the .270, all with the 150-grain Partition.

Now we're gone from "questionable" and "stupid" on eland with the .270, to "not optimum." That may be true, but this thread could go on for many pages on what's "optimum" for eland.

B-29; anything less would be uncivilized.

Seems kind'a overkill, but who am I to judge...?

Sure John, but how about "better choices" and a 270 isn't it. Or for lion. Pondoro Taylor took a lot of elephant with the 7X57 too. Hell, why even have any caliber above it then?

And I'll stick with my original statement, I don't think it's that outrageous: "Even with modern bullets, a 270 on a one ton eland is questionable at fifty yards and downright stupid at 400. And regarding the taking of a lion with one, that too, is rather foolhardy."

Actually, I don't think Pondoro was the famous 7x57 elephant slayer....

Finn Aagaard remarked a number of times about how American safari hunters are frequently over-gunned, just like Don Heath pointed out in this article. In fact, as I recall Finn wrote that he'd seen more plains game killed with fewer shots with the .270 than any other cartridge. (Finn also wrote that he didn't know the .458 Winchester wasn't truly adequate for dangerous Africa game until moving to Texas after Kenya shut down safari hunting in 1977.)

I've hunted with a bunch of PH's, and the only one who made a big deal about cartridges like the .270, 7x57 and .30-06 being inadequate for plains game was 32 years old, and left the business two years later. The rest have all been pretty happy with "not optimum" rounds like the above three, including one of the two most experienced PH's I've hunted with, who's killed a number of eland with the 7x57--and buffalo with the .30-06.

This is starting to remind me to of the "minimum 'caliber' for Kodiak brown bear" thread.

Now if it was a Weatherby.

Apples and oranges, pal.

Well anybody who says said those calibers were "inadequate" for PG was obviously mistaken and I'm being polite. My only caveat is PG includes from the 25lb dik-dik to a one ton eland, and an eland, regardless of caliber I would not take at 400 yards. And my mistake, it was Bell, but I think you got the gist of what I was trying to say. I've also seen a buffalo taken with a 303 as well:




which brings us back full circle; why have anything but a 270, 7X57 or a 3006 then?

Much better choice....of course!

Long range shooting? I think its fantastic practice to improve your skills. But I'd still rather get as close as possible to ensure a quick kill. The long range hunters always get their hackles up when this topic comes up. If you and your cartridge/bullet combo is truly long range capable, great. Me, I'd rather sneak thru that draw, cross over into the willows, get into the other cut of the creek staying downwind and cut the distance in half.

What these PH's from Ganyana/458Win and others are trying to tell us are the pitfalls they see thru years of guiding. I view this as "value added" and shortening the learning curve. Overgunned, under-practiced, boots not broken in, minimal physical preparation, etc.. I am pleased they choose to post here and share their experiences.

Ok, back to the mud slinging.............

I don't know if you're referring to Bob Lee or not but if not, he was another one who used a .270 with 150 NPt on multiple lions.

Is the Partition one of those magic "modern bullets"? At near 70yrs old it would seem to be kinda old school.

I was there a few years ago when a friend of mine shot a rather large bison(buffalo) with a failsafe in that caliber, i did a nasty on the heart and it sure didn't go anywhere.

Whoop,
+1
Dave

John - let me help you out:



Perhaps that's why it is still an oft held standard by which to judge newer bullets. Certainly there are some which do some things better but being newer has done little to improve on the overall success that John Nosler's brainchild has had.

I don't know Don Heath and have never been to Africa but seems to me what we have here is a cultural rift. I suspect Heath is down on 350 yard shots because he has had too many clients who couldn't do it and seen too many rodeos.My understanding is that he is also an accomplished match shooter so might know his way around a rifle.

If your job requires cleaning up the mess someone else has made you might be a bit jaundiced when it comes to clients and shooting BG animals and 350 yard shots;based on what I have seen of the average guided hunter I'd likely cut the distance in half.

That he trains professional hunters, and has maybe seen a few thousand head of BG animals killed adds to the qualifications to draw a line in the sand as far as distance is concerned.There may be a lot of guys on here who are accomplished long range shots but 350 yards is starting to get stretchy for a lot of people out there;accomplished and skilled shooters who practice a lot and have BTDT may not realize this, but they are thinking these things through based on their own rose colored prism and not through the eyes of a guy like Heath.

Plus the average North American hunter shoots a paltry and pathetically small number of BG animals compared to those who visit places like Africa frequently.Compared to a guy like Heath he has almost no experience at all.

He may save, or wait to be drawn,for a decade or more for one opportunity at one 6x6 bull elk, ram, or whatever. If he shoots 8-10 BG animals a year here(not doe culls for crying out loud they are rats and count for nothing he is extraordinarily active or very wealthy to do it in North America. So, if he wants to "up" his chances of success, the ability to make one shot at 400-700 yards (or whatever)isn't a bad skill to possess,assuming of course he can really do it under field conditions...(I suspect not many are really that good but that's another subject).

Not having been there, I can only guess but suspect Africa provides more opportunity so if your pro decides you should pass on the 400 yard eland (or whatever) there will likely be another along shortly.I bet the odds are far better than trying to kill 8-10 180 class mule deer or 300 class bull elk in Colorado even if the law allowed it.

Questions of cartridge sufficiency are like politics and religion so who wants to go there? After some 80+ years of killing animals here and in Africa all the 270 discussions should be over.

If we think (because we recently decided to take up BG hunting) that the 270 is woefully insufficient for lion I would ask what we know that many before us didn't,since the cartridge has killed untold numbers of bull moose and grizzlies here?( The grizzly will kick the lions ass all day long

I mean we all know someone who has killed a pile of game with one in Africa, don't we?

How much more do we need to know?

Partitions still work because the animals are as easy to kill today as they were in the 1940's....we just want to shoot further today and for that there may be better stuff. Anyone tired of their Partitions can send them here....I won't pay for them because if you think they suck you should be willing to give them away for nothing.

Hey Bob,

You said it just as well as I could !!

Seriously, very well stated and ACCURATE.

That sounds like a signature line

Because we all know lions and elk are built similarly.

M1: I mean really....how far down the road do we have to go? Bob Lee grassed quite a few lions with a 270 Winchester and I personally know 4-5 people who have killed several grizzlies with one.

Ideal? No maybe not.Does it kill them? I guess it does or there would be no dead lions or grizzlies ever shot with a 270.

We are all entitled to our opinions but not our own facts.

An example may be that I would not choose a 243 for elk (opinion), but I know it kills them(fact).

Back around 1985 I was thinking about having a custom .270 bolt gun built.

Spent the money chasin' wenches instead and I still don't have a .270 although I caught a keeper wench finally. All I can afford today is .22 shorts.

Bob,

You are right about Africa providing more opportunity. Of course, some of this is exaggerated today by "game ranch" (fenced) hunting in South Africa and some other countries, though even that isn't necessarily shooting fish in a barrel. There are some tiny properties where animals are essentially put-and-take, like hatchery fish. But a fenced ranch of tens of thousands of acres is something else.

But most of Africa is fre-range, and even there the numbers of animals are far higher than in North America, for two reasons. First, winters aren't severe, though droughts can be. Second, there are far more kinds of animals. Even if you split North American big game animals into record-keeping categories, there are only about three dozen. In Africa there are at least 80 kinds of horned game alone.

All of this results in an abundance most Americans can't even imagine. Your point about 8-10 big mule deer or elk is actually fairly accurate. I have seen at least 50 MATURE kudu bulls, the equivalent of a 300" bull elk, in unfenced country in Namibia in a 10-day hunt, and over 1000 impala in one day in Tanzania, including a pile of mature rams, and single herds of over 1000 Cape buffalo in Botswana.

This is partly why African trophy standards for a week or 10-day hunt are higher than a North American hunt for mule deer or elk. Over there you're not just looking for a "legal" animal to kill, like a brow-tined bull elk in Montana, but a truly mature bull. The PH simply won't let you shoot anything smaller, and there are enough kudu in many parts of southern Africa that the only reason for not bringing home a good trophy is the search looking for an exceptional trophy. So there's no real reason to shoot beyond 350 yards--or 350 meters, however, you want to measure it.

Also, there's the standard African policy of charging a trophy fee anytime blood is drawn, whether or not the animal's recovered. This cuts down considerably on chancy shooting, whether at short or long range. While good African trackers (whether black or white) are fantastic, they aren't superhuman, and without some luck aren't going to be able to find an animal that's not pretty hard-hit, especially when the animals live in big herds--and many African animals do.

Plus, the meat is normally either sold or given to local tribes, so there's an additional incentive to recovering game, either monetary or necessary for hunting access. So in addition to the basic ethic of attempting to avoid wounding animals, there are other incentives to pass on iffy shots.

Then there's the terrain. While there is some open country in Africa, even there the thorny ground cover sometimes doesn't allow for the steady shooting positions required for long-range shooting. And even if the shooter can get steady, the animal may not be entirely visible. There are exceptions, since parts of South Africa and, especially, Namibia are a lot like Arizona or Wyoming, but again they're exceptions.

Much of the best hunting country is more or less level, but covered with thornbush and trees. In a lot of bushveld a 200-yard shot would be very long.

In many countries there's also the residual British-based hunting ethic that regards getting as close as possible far more commendable than making a longer shot.

So yeah, there is a considerable cultural divide.

I think it was Col. Chas Askins that quipped deer and lions are built the same. They both have four legs on all the same corners�.or something to that effect.

For the most part number 2 should read 200 yards. But then he needs to go look at the definition of ethics. For some that number could be much higher....

I"ve seen a lot of folks shoot at 300 on paper, not what you'd want flung at game generally speaking.

I can say the same about some people's shooting at 100 yards.

He probably didn't care too much about the differences. He was just worried about finding some more people to shoot.

Locate a good bullet through the vitals and game over irregardless of caliber. A 270 can most assuredly do this.

Until cartridge love is equal...

Gee's another tastes great less filling thread! The cartridge is nothing more than a launcher for the bullet, a good bullet regardless of size or weight that is reasonable is going to put game on the ground, if you can put that bullet in the right spot. Be it 243 or a 338 or anything in between. There are two issues here recoil, and over all rifle weight and fit. And then there is the Hunter/rifleman him or herself. Most will shoot a 270 for example better than a 300 Winnie or the like, and such rifle can be a tad lighter so one can carry it all day for a week or two. This stuff is not rocket science, for most of us big game hunting means White Tail Deer hunting, and with that anything from a 223 to a 30-06 is going to put venison in the freezer. Africa is for most a one time deal, so is Elk, Moose and sheep. As for shooting distances, do what you want to do and leave it at that. As for the cartridge in question, its dam hard to improve on!

Well said.

I hear you. It's always worked great for me and my family.

Strange that most African countries don't allow small arms to hunt large game by non resident hunters. By small arms I mean less than .375. Wonder why?

Strange that the .375 requirement applies to different game than we're talking about. Or did I miss a post on shooting elephant, hippo, rhino or buffalo?

Zimbabwe Requirements

Class A Game
5300 Joule (3909 Ft/LB)
Minimum caliber 9.2mm in diameter
(Elephant, Hippo, Buffalo)

- Class B Game
4300 Joule (2883 Ft/LB)
Minimum caliber 7.0mm in diameter
(Lion, Giraffe, Eland)

- Class C Game
3000 Joule (2213 Ft/LB)
Minimum caliber 7.0mm in diameter
(Leopard, Crocodile, Kudu, Oryx / Gemsbok, Hartebeest, Wildebeest, Zebra, Nyala, Sable Antelope, Waterbuck, Tsessebe, etc.)

- Class D Game (627 Ft/LB)
850 Joule
Minimum caliber 5.56mm in diameter
(Warthog, Impala, Reedbuck, Sitatunga, Duiker, Steenbok, Jackal, Game Birds, etc.)

But I have seen several authors who post on here regularly and occasionally state that a 270 is fine for black bears and they typically get bigger than lions, have teeth and claws and often aren't hunted with the benefit of a "professional hunter" beside you. What gives?

Whats also missing is that in general shooting in Africa is usually off of sticks, I contend that there are few who could hit the vitals consistently at the distances talked about with the first shot, does the caliber make a difference? sure its "easier" to shoot a smaller caliber accurately.

Dennis,

While some people might point out that lions are far more dangerous than black bears, especially when wounded, the big differences I've heard from several PH's are:

1) Lion hunters are often over-gunned, because....

2) Lions scare the schidt out of them, and....

3) Lion trophy fees are VERY expensive.

Have also heard the first two factors applied to the average Cape buffalo hunter, plus the hunter being middle-aged, tired and hot when he finally gets a shot.

Heath thinks Weatherby rifles are crap...
http://www.africahunting.com/thread...ofessional-hunter-proficiency-exam.2604/

Heath is right again!

Interesting article that'll definitely ruffle some feathers.

Usually uninteresting articles don't!

I had two friends mauled by black bears in the last two season because the bears were shot with smaller calibers and didn't go down quick enough. One guy was knocked unconscious and were it not for a valiant pack of hounds he would be dead. I won't argue that lions are not more dangerous as I have never seen one outside of a theme park but folks tend to underestimate bears.

Well, yeah--which is why I've always been very careful when following up a hit bear of any kind. But also haven't hunted them with dogs, which no doubt increases the adrenaline level of the bear, as well as decreasing the range of a charge.

That still doesn't mean black bears are anywhere near as dangerous as lions--or cost as much to hunt, either in stress or dollars.

I have no experience w/lions as a matter of fact the only one I ever touched was at the A@F store in San Fran in 1966. It's head was damn near 2 feet wide and the muzzle larger than a standard mail box, I was/am impressed. I have killed probably 25 black bears most w/an HVA 243 and old style 100gr. Nosler PT's. Anybody who says it isn't enough gun for BB doesn't know how/where to place bullets. I have never felt undergunned with it. Anybody who lets themselves get close enough to a bear to be injured is an IDIOT!. Sorry I grew up on a cattle ranch with much more dangerous critters than black bears on a hour by hour basis. But I will tell you something, wild cats SCARE me, why do you think that Col. Jim Corbett shot them in the head mostly.-Muddy

yeah but a lion is more apt to kill a person in the short time during which a mauling generally happens...one bite from a lion can put its canines into the skull or well into the thoracic cavity.....ive read a hell of alot of bear attack incidents where even large griz dont successfully do this with any regularity compared to a lion....i would fear the jaws of a lion much more than a bear with the same skull size....but then again ive read alot of official accounts of attacks by each and not had the chance to hunt either....i respect bears, even black bears....but its not the same level of respect i hold for big cats....

Yes he does as do most African PHs and there is/was a very valid reason for this (BTW, check the date on the article). I've spoken to him whilst at DSC a few years ago (keep in mind that article was written sometime ago). When Weatherbys first hit the scene, the bullets at the time could not stand up to the velocities they produced thus resulting in many animals being wounded due to bullet blow up.

This, coupled with the marketing ploy by Wby about using say, the 257 to kill zebras, didn't help any. Also, the first manufactured MKVs (German)had an issue with the safety, although not as infamous as the POS Remingtons. So the perception and reputation was well-established and it's been an uphill battle since. Today, with the advent of the same projectiles Don speaks of, Weatherbys are doing very well in Africa. I don't remember which author, either Seyfried or Layne Simpson wrote a good article discussing this. I can only speak for myself and my limited experience with Weatherby rifles. My 300 has acoounted for almost twenty head of AFrican game, and I did learn my lesson ..once with Hornady bullets in my 300. I like my Weatherbys, Model 70s and Browning Safari grades, based on *MY* eperiences and on the same experience, you couldn't GIVE me a Remington. While you are at it, you might want to read what he thinks about those too.

Three years ago I hunted with a Tanzanian PH who classed both Remington 700's (which Heath all but calls POS's) and CZ's (which Heath rates highly) as "cheap rifles." The PH's idea of a not-cheap rifle was the big-bore Austrian double he'd inherited from his father and still used for back-up work on dangerous game--on which he'd mounted a cheap red-dot sight.

The guy also owned a Remington 700, a 7mm Remington Magnum which he'd used to kill quite a few buffalo.

John, the other common thread that continues to this day (but IS changing as the old guard retires and more gun savvy PHs come into their own) is the old adage that bigger and slower is the way to go. I do love my 450NE and it's certainly a great caliber, but that same properly constructed bullet, driven 4-500 fps faster leaves the 450 in the dust. PH Wayne Grant (Into The Thorns), carries a 460 Weatherby because he states that with it, he can anchor a wounded bull elephant past 100 yards with no problem and he's never had an issue with it.

Long-range hunting is all the rage with some.

Up close is with others. Interestingly, for lots of people, getting close is "all the rage." It's not that they're "stymied" by a 400-yard shot, it's just that it holds no interest for them.

Strange as that may sound to you.

That's how I feel about it. I don't care how far somebody else shoots but a 400 yard shot doesn't interest me. Maybe because I was raised by a dedicated archer or maybe it was the .44 mag/.45-70 mentality I developed but I prefer to stalk my prey rather than reach out and touch it. I don't mind if others shoot hundreds of yards but I've never carried a LRF yet much less some gadget loaded scope. I have no idea why I didn't stay with the Guide Gun in .45-70 and be done with it.

Wayne also uses it to shoot lizards that are foolish enough to venture into his tent. (He can be a lot of fun to be around.)

I do think there is some strong regional influence on one's definition of "long range." I have hunted Africa, and could see how 200 yards could be a long poke, given the topography and vegetation. I have never hunted in PA, like moosemike has, but have been there a number of times and can easily how a 45/70 could be adequate. But where I live, being completely competent at 300-350 yards is a requirement. The photo below was taken from where my son (probably about 17 yo at the time) shot an antelope doe. He shot from sitting, over homemade shooting sticks, and made a clean one shot kill. The distance, as I recall, was about 325. He is standing way down in the photo, wearing dark pants and hunter orange, where the doe is. There is just no way to get any closer, and with a .270 Win or like cartridge, no wind, and calm animals,that is a shot any hunter should be up to.




I have great regard for Don Heath's experience. I believe his 350 limit is shaped by the landscape and cover type he works in. I am one of those getting-older, out-of-shape, over-gunned, easily-excitable clients. I probably could do like Barsness and take a 7x57 and 9.3x62, but I took a .338 and a .416 on my last trip. But hopefully I shoot enough that I could make up for my choices.

Utah708,
In that country you had better be able to shoot long range. Wow! I killed four antelope in southwestern South Dakota and it was very rolling. I was able to stalk them to around 200 yards. I wouldn't be stalking anything though in that pic you show.

I understand your comments. Sounds like a good hunt with your son and good shooting on his part. And 325 is not particularly long range with current technology.

However, I am always puzzled that advocates of long range say there is no way to get any closer yet bow hunters kill the same game in the same areas every season.

Reality is that it is always a choice to take a shot at any range, (and except when being attacked) never a necessity.

Dedicated long rangers set out to shoot animals at long range. They/we deliberately prepare special long range tools long before the hunt. The long range forum here would not exist otherwise.

It is a choice to shoot animals at long range.

That statement is not judgmental, merely fact.

I just read the article and I considered all his advice to be directed at clients visiting Africa.




Travis

I mentioned that possibility a while back on this thread, but apparently that's too boring for those who didn't read the article. And they're usually the majority of those who post on any discussion of any magazine articles.

Sonsabitches.

I'm off to the tanning bed and to send you the money I forgot to send you last week.





Travis

Never let facts intrude on emotional responses.

I read the piece and would agree that he was probably talking about Africa. As I commented earlier, most of the hunting areas in Zimbabwe have a lot of vegetation and are not conducive to long shots.

Travis,

Yeah, what the hell's America coming to when we can't comment anonymously on the Internet about stuff we've never read?

Tan well....

Except the parts where he said Weatherbys & Remington 700s weren't reliable. Those are universally applicable truths .

I guess I missed that portion of the article.



Travis

There was a link on this thread to another Ganyana article about various rifle actions, but apparently some people think all articles by a certain author are the same article. (These may or may not be different people than those who comment on articles they haven't read.)

Then there are people who believe all gun writers write the same things. Eileen and I once had a table at the Bozeman gun show, and one guy who stopped finally figured out I was a gun writer, due to all the gun books by me on the table. He immediately went into a rant about how !!!!ALL GUN WRITERS!!!! say the .270 !!!!ISN'T ENOUGH!!!! for any AFRICAN GAME!!!!

It all makes one wonder why humans invented language. I mean, why bother?

I mostly just scroll through threads to find what I wrote the previous evening.




Travis

I do too, but often I don't find anything...at least anything I remember writing....

I usually don't read anything, just scroll for pictures.

[b]Link for Heath article on rifle actions[/b]

Thought that article on lessons learned was quite old and out of date. Believe those Rugers he was talking about were early generations of the RSM. Seem to recall a second or maybe third generation of the RSM coming out after the article, and they've been no more for a while now. Also, I take the quoted points, from the original post, in the context of his professional advice, reference clients. In that arena, he has quite a volume of experience to back up his formed opinion. I reckon if you're an African PH, you can dish out something different to a client if it suits you, and if you are a client who are at odds with Heath, you can look for a different PH having an opinion closer to your thinking.

My opinion, some here may be taking things way out of context, and whipping themselves up to the point noses are getting out of wack. Take such advice from professionals with a grain of salt in the context the advice was given.

I completely disagree. The Weatherby safety was changed in the 70s and those issues ceased. Remington's issues continue.

I was trolling, figuring that if so many couldn't recognize the unique context in which the comments in the OP were made they might not recognize the same regarding rifle actions.

You're supposed to tell me all about all the NA game you've killed with the rifles he suggested were sub-par for a PH in Africa to prove how wrong he is.

Or maybe someone would if I were to start a thread using that article as OP? Of course now I've given up the element of surprise...



That one cracked me up.

I am a banker and I got bawled out the other day for low interest rates that don't encourage people to save. Not only did this gentleman fail to recognize that I wasn't a member of the Fed (much less the chair) but he also seemed to think that all bankers agree low interest rates in the best interest of our business.

I just say that to suggest that, as you well know I am sure, we all experience that sort of I'll-informed criticism.

I found the two articles linked to by Ganyana insightful and informative. However the length of this thread again proves a 24HCF axiom: the longer the thread the greater chance it devolves into worthless banter.

Nicely said, BW.

You just lengthened this thread.



Travis

So did u & me; That's what I come here for, though.

Jorge is just waiting for somebody to type "700" so he can take it another four pages.




Travis

Time for a pic or two.




Ok,carry on.

First the earth cooled, and the contraction caused the first 700's handle to fall off...

WTF did I tell you people? He pounced like a goddamm cat!

Burns is snappin' selfies in preparation for the debate.



Travis

sweet!

Don't forget Dumb Don...

That's why I carry JB weld in my pack to fix my bolt each time it falls off

The dinosaurs came and went, man evolved and Roy Weatherby appeared to save us all. People in trailer parks the world over rejoiced�.

I detest Weatherby's...

Any specific reasons, or generally?

trailer parks?..... Don't you mean cake eaters and champagne & strawberries for breakfast crowd?

The linked articles states:



This may be true of these rifles; I haven't worked mine so vigorously as to find out. Nor have I run my 358 (rebarreled 338 Win) hard enough to know. I do know that I had no trouble gunking up a brand new 30-06 MK II when I spilled part of a cartridges contents into the action and magazine. The point he makes about the ejector in the M77 MK IIs is a valid comment and probably applies to other makes as well which us a similar system. Some folks call this a standing ejector but it really isn't that since, as he points out, the ejector rises through a slot, a design which isn't materially different on the modern M70.

And although my Ruger 375 H&H feeds correctly (CRF-wise) and virtually flawlessly whether running fast or slow, I cannot say the same for most M77s I have used, or actually, for any of the other American made rifles I own. In fact, one of the worst has been a Model 70 I have which is quite picky about what it will feed well; length is it's issue however, so as long as they're 'long enough,' all is fine. I suspect feeding is generally a bigger overall issue than is extracting and ejecting with most factory issue rifles. That said, there is nothing like having a wolf or other high prize-value animal in the sights to really find out whether a bolt rifle can work fast and hard.

Don't we all run a bolt action fast and hard in practice to find out if they really work as intended?

This is the article that I find intriguing with his blunt talk over the evaluations.



http://www.africahunting.com/thread...ofessional-hunter-proficiency-exam.2604/

Well, you can't completely ignore what he says....he has been around the block that's for sure!

The stock design is a terrible fit for me, the ammo/brass is very expensize, I dont care for excessive freebore, I have found that Weatherby's are a bit bitchy in the accuracy department,and they look appalling to anyone not around in the 50-60's.
And I make these comments because I have owned more than a few. In fact my first rifle was a Weatherby Vanguard in .243 that at the time was offered with a McMillan stock. Have also owned several mark v's, and several more remingtons/Winchesters chambered in weatherby cartridges.

No, clearly not. But having known a few SA PH's (I lived there for a period between HS and college), I can say they sometimes have some weird ideas in regards to bullets and guns. Alot of it I believe is based on availability of quality ammo/guns and the expense associated with it. A good example is taking a 30-06, loading it with 220's at reduced velocity. Another is the fact that BRNO 602's are held in high regard, but CZ'z are crap, when they are pretty close in design.
My dad was part owner of a Zambian safari business and hunted extensivly. He used a model 700's, but this was a time before CRF rifles in safari calibers were widely available.

All valid comments sir, albeit a couple of caveats: The "Weatherby Freebore" is a thinkg of the past. With the advent of new powders, that freebore is not what it used to be. Accuracy-wise, at least for me, they have been the most accurate rifles I've ever owned. Cheers,

I followed the link to Mr Heath's comment on rifle actions for africa.

I tried to work the bolt as fast as I could on my 308win hawkeye to try to duplicate it's short comings. Could not duplicate so might be doing something wrong.

Is there a fix/solution for this short coming with the Rugers?

I'm not sure that I'd sweat details such as the ones he points out other than to give any hunting rifle a good going over and workout prior to using it for anything beyond 'gentlemanly' hunting. And then note every single little bobble and hitch the rifle has if you really expect it to work under the worst of conditions. Every single one of those things should get attention from someone who is both willing and able to replicate and remedy the issues until the rifle works flawlessly. Most people don't worry about a CRF rifle that doesn't actually CRF every single time from both left and right sides of the stack and both fast, slow, and everywhere in between; as long as it feeds, many are okay with that. But there are many, many things I've either learned about my rifles while hunting, or discovered why various 'minor' issues really aren't, in the heat of a hunt. Rifles that are finicky about how the magazine is loaded are not what is wanted if you need the reload in the midst of the action. Feed rails generally work alright as manufactured but relatively few work flawlessly; many probably either don't know or don't care as long as they work "normally" when used "as they were designed and intended". For something as 'simple' as a bolt gun, there certainly are a great many little details which can work well or not. The ejector problem he notes with the M77 is not a detail I'd worry about as much as some others. As I mentioned earlier, it is a design which can get 'gunked up' and is really no different in that respect than the Model 70's and perhaps some others.

And to be fair, the article linked above refers to rifles used by professionals where the element of 'self-defense' (defense of client) can be a major need and issue. The same requirements don't necessarily apply to most of us and few people even practice with similar rigor to that which is expected of PHs in their drills and exams. And the human element is no small part of the equation itself.

I think Heath is giving us a look at how these rifles performed at the highest risk level they are asked to work at. Surely we aren't concerned with charging mule deer, pronghorn or even a rut-crazed bull. The great majority of us will never use or come to rely on our rifle as do the PH's.

But it cannot be ignored that if the PH sees these problems in Africa, they can occur in North America. In a similar fashion, a NASCAR driver puts his modified car thru a more torturous environment in 4 hours than we do in many years. In both cases there are lessons to be learned.

Was your ejector clean? He was talking about dusty, dirty Rugers failing to eject. I'm a big Ruger 77 guy but he knows what he talks about and I'm not about to argue with him.

That's what I take from it.




Heath is talking about the fact that the ejectors on the rifles they tested did not 'rise' fast enough and in some cases therefore failed to be 'standing', so the case head was not caught by them and the case thrown. They used 7 M77 MK IIs and 6 of the 7 showed the problem. That either suggests they were using guns which were not cleaned prior to the testing -and that that model is prone to getting sluggish when they get a bit of resistance in them, or it suggests that they are really running them fast, much faster than most people ever will, and that the ejector simply wasn't fast enough in rising. I believe it would only take a slightly stronger spring to defeat that failure if such was the case.

I don't have access to the article and would appreciate it if someone can elaborate on Ganyana's ideas regarding different optics and QR rings.
Thanks,
Pete

Yet there are NO rules about how far one may drive a baseball or golf ball!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

No, there aren't any rules--but in both sports the grounds or equipment have been changed over the past few decades to limit distance. And in baseball, performance-enhancing drugs were banned.

But both golf and baseball are competitions for money. Hunting isn't--well, except for competitions for selling products, or endorsements.

Pete:

Got the article right here. There's a photo of a Mauser-actioned rifle with a two-piece set of mounts. And there are six optical devices, one mounted on the rifle.

The caption says: "Ganyana prefers good optical sights over open sights in any situation." I don't know if Ganyana wrote that himself in the third person or the editor did.

The mounted optic looks like some kind of red dot, maybe with magnification. That one has an integral clamp fixing it to the front mount only. Below the rifle is another red dot scope, perhaps with magnification and that has two QD rings attached to it. Next to that is a Leupold variable of some sort, also in QD rings. They look like they'd both go on the rifle in question.

Below those, are a little holo sight, like you would see on a pistol. Then a second larger holo sight with integral mounts. And a small Leupold of some kind. I don't recognize it.

Assuming this is his rifle, and I don't see why not, all six of these optics have been used on this rifle, or could be with a few minutes work.

Hope that helps.

Edited to add: Now that I look at the photo more closely, the only QD mounts are on the first Leupold. The other mounts are "QD" only in the sense that a quick twist with a screwdriver would mount them.

Excellent and knowledgeable reply.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Sorry, but I don't see how those comments relate to mine.

Being an avid baseball fan, I watched the homerun derby a few nights ago... the farther the ball was wacked, the more loud and excited the commentators and crowd were.

My point: I really don't see where rules in baseball teach anything about rules needed in LR hunting. They are completely unrelated. I also played a lot of golf in years gone by, and range was only limited by my ability in the use of the right club. There may be a lesson there worth pondering.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Aluminum bats.

CZ550,

On one level you're right, because golf and baseball are games! And hunting isn't.

But on another you're wrong:

Spitballs were outlawed in baseball in 1920, except for pitchers who'd long used it, because pitchers started to dominate batters. At about the same time the ball was "juiced," so it would fly farther.

Fences were moved closer to home plate in most professional baseball parks over the next few decades, because not enough runs were being scored, and more paying fans could be crowded into the parks.

The pitcher's mound was lowered in the 1960's, because runs were down.

The strike zone has been dicked with, off and on, for all of the above reasons. Right now it's the smallest it's been in a long time.

The size of golf club heads has been limited in recent years because of too-long drives.

Golf balls have been limited in design, for the same reason. In other words, they were de-juiced, because of too may birdies and eagles.

Professional-level golf courses have been lengthened, as I recall an average of around 400-500 yards over 18 holes, in the past 15 years.

Is there a parallel in hunting? Not really, because it's not a spectator sport--or wasn't, before entire cable TV networks were devoted to hunting.

I was going to laugh uproariously...then remembered Burns.

Travis is probably correct.

Jorge, most of my expiereance has been with the 7mm and 300 Weatherby cartridges. I never had one that shot real well with out farting around with it for a long time and even then the results were not spectacular. The other factor for me, at least in regards to the 300 is the fact I have both a nice 300 win mag and a mod 70 300 ultra mag, which is my favourite. I fail to see what the 300 Bee offers over the Win Mag and the Ultra stomps it handily while using an unbelted case that is cheap(at least prior to the current craziness).

Some of the 300 Weatherby's I've had shot like gangbusters...but those all had Krieger barrels...

I've had (and have) 300 Win Mags and have barely been able to break 3100 fps. I don't care for the short neck, but overall it has been very accurate for me.

My 300 Weatherbys easily achieve the adverised 3250 fps with 180gr bullets (which is all I shoot) with 80gr of MRP/RL-22 and half MOA (TTSXs). Belts to me are transparent, in other words when I buy a cartridge, the belt (or lack thereof) is inconsequential.

The 300 RUM published specs are what, 3300ish ft/s (180 gr)? and that is with 12 grains more powder than the Weatherby, so "beating the pants" is a stretch.

I will grant you the horrendous expense of Norma brass and that is why I often-times use Remington brass at considerably less money . noted and granted. But materially and functionally speaking, the 700 is a cheap, cost reducing design and it shows.
Hyperbole aside regarding the bolt handles, their extractors are cheap and subject to breakage, and I just can't even consider a safety that is on yet another recall, not to mention the fact it fails to lock the bolt. Looks as well all know is subjective, and that's just a fact of life and in that regard I think Remington's bolt handle looks cheesy with that flat, oval bolt handle...Almost as fugly as the one on Brownings.

I do love my Weatherbys and I have quite a few, but in reality, give me a Browning Safari Grade or a Model 70 in 300 H&H every time. cheers, jorge

3100 is a good place to be for a 30 cal mag. You get much above this point and they require much more discipline to shoot.
As for the RUM. I get over 3300 with a 24" tube. And given the choice I think belt less cases are preferable. With the 300 weatherby's I have loaded for I had trouble hitting 2250, unless I leaned on it pretty good. 3200 is more realistic IME.
And just as you think the 700's bolt handle is ugly(I agree), both the weatherby and browning safari are garish looking relics from the 50 and 60's. Sorta like a pimp wearing a loud, purple suit!

I can see you assigning that moniker to a Weatherby but to a Safari Grade?? really?



Yep, ugly/good looking subjective, but cheap extractors, brazed on bolt handles, and safeties that are at best questionable and don't even lock the bolt when engaged, well those are facts, not open to interpretation. Oh, and so are my chronographed and half MOA groups...

I'm not understanding the bashing of Remington 700 actions. The tolerances are not as close for sure, but the fact of the matter is that is a good thing for functioning. Other actions with tight tolerances fail in like conditions

I own a few of them in both hunting and competition configurations; they operate great in the harshest conditions. When I say that, I'm talking about sand, dust, dirt, wind, rain and every other type of crap thrown at it when it MUST work like match shooting over a period of days and hundreds of rounds. Ya got to be able to run the bolt and run it quickly. I've done well with them. Wasn't the Remington 700 the choice of the military for sniper work? I would think it was chosen for the same reason.

I don't think I'd be ascared to take one to Africa.


As far as the dude, Ganyana, and his top 3 list, everything JohnBurns has written is right; the guy is accurate about 33% of the time.

It wasn't chosen for that, AT ALL. Think lowest bidder. Besides, sniping and Dangerous Game hunting have little in common. Remington extractors have a history of failure in dusty/dirt conditions, hence the big market for replacement extractors.

I honestly trust the factory extractor more than some of the aftermarket replacement. I think the Remington extractor is fine as long as one cleans it out now and then.

And the FN action on the Safari was a cost cutting measure vs the 98 with its H ring breach, cheaper safety/trigger and cheesy pot metal'ish bottom metal. Not to mention many had salt wood stocks.

You must be right. I'm sure the buyers wanted to put our Country's Finest in battle with the cheapest equipment that could be had to save us a few bucks. They're always looking to save the taxpayers some cash.

BTW, I've had exactly one extractor fail on a competition rifle. It gets treated like a hammer from a tool box

No, the safety was changed to allow for scope use and of course their safeties WORKED. The salt issue was an obvious issue for a few of the many years it was in production but irrelevant to rifle quality. And why did they stop making it along with Winchester and the pre-64s? to save costs and have a cheaper action. ..like the 700s.

Keyboard Safari

Botswana-.375 dangerous game
Cameroon-.354 cal or larger group 3
Central Africa-.375 for dangerous or big game.
Nambia-Big game 5400 joule at least .375 for that energy(lion)
South Africa-minimum .375 for big game including dangerous.
Tanzania-.375 for dangerous or big game.

I am presently living in Africa and hunt many of these countries.

I've never understood the bashing of 700's for general use either, since I've shot at least 100,000 rounds (and maybe twice that) through 700's over the years, and never had a bolt fall off, or an extractor break. (As a matter of fact, have never seen either happen with the 700's used by my companions, either.) In general 700's also feed very reliably, since push-feed actions don't have to be tuned as much to the specific cartridge as controlled-feed actions. Have even taken a 700 to African and killed a grizzly bear in Alaska with one.

Am not going to argue with Heath, though, on the higher reliability of good CRF actions, like commercial 98 Mausers of CZ's. Would rather hunt most dangerous game with a CRF rifle that had been really tuned for the cartridge than a 700 or other push-feed, and generally do.

I have seen one bolt fall off and two extractors break- one extractor was on a Wal-Mart cheap 30-06 with matt finish 700, one was on a Robar SR60 sniper rifle which broke at about the 3000 round mark. Saw a bolt fall off with very poor coverage of the silver braze- only took around the edges of the bolt attachment. I have seen some [and done so myself] bolts beaten on pretty hard and not break off but it isn't comforting to see people have to do it!

Include the Weatherby in the push feed. Everytime I hunted in Africa in open truck and dust flying in the dry season. When you get a heavy coat of dust on everything, my preference in PF.

That's cause I took one (3 actually) for the team.

Have had two bolt handles fall off and 1 extractor break. The extractor didn't really break but something happened to it such that it wouldn't grab the case rim any more. Oh, I remember, it twisted around in the bolt face. Anyway, it didn't work and I needed a cleaning rod to get the case out. Replacing the extractor cured that problem.

I've had bolt releases get stuck in the down position so that when you work the bolt it comes right out the back of the receiver. No biggie, just put it back in.

I've also had the ejector pin get jammed up several times by a sliver of brass sheared off by (variously) burrs or a raised lip around the ejector pin hole, or brass shaved off by a too sharp extractor hook. It extracts the case okay but it just sits there held to the front of the bolt, you have to reach in and flip it out with your finger. That is, if you haven't tried to load the next round and gotten everything jammed up. All you have to do is get a screwdriver tip or something and push the ejector down a couple of times to work the brass shaving loose to fix it.





I got all of those rifles so the rest of y'all wouldn't have to put up with them. You're welcome...


But seriously, despite my beating the odds with Model 700's I still like them. They're generally very accurate and the old triggers could be adjusted down to a nice crisp pull, albeit they might go off when the safety is released so always watch that muzzle!

I had a string of several one shot kills with a M700 BDL .30-06. it always worked flawlessly but it wasn't put to a torture test, just carried out in the hills for a few hours. I like the rifles, still have five of them, but I wouldn't trust my life to one, especially one that had to be carried in dusty or icy conditions for a while.

Mike hunts in Africa as much as anyone I know. Not a "keyboard" anything

Then you need to get the facts right. One countries rules don't blanket the whole country. Think about it. If your hunting in heavy brush and jungle versus plains hunting. Pick your caliber wisely.

Usually these problems are caused by shooting loads well over-pressure.

I know from experience

Not always. I know from experience as well.

Refresh my memory. Your purpose built .338 for real wilderness use was, too, a M700 or was it something else.

CAR is not .375 but .338 precisely 8.5mm.

Namibia there is no indications about cats for mini in Energy ... only for Buffalo, Rhino, Hippo and Elephant ... in fact in Namibia you can use a 300 wea mag or 8x68s that will meet the mini but not a 9.3x62 ...

Army gunsmiths use Remington actions to build sniper rifles. Other than the action I doubt many parts are the same that we buy. For a variety of reasons 700's are probably the easiest to customize. That and low bidder.

First one I saw was a pre-stainless period rifle that had only fired factory Core-lokts; second was a stainless rifle which was quite new and the bolt popped off when the bolt was closed under the tension of the firing spring. (The trigger was pulled when closing the bolt - my bad!) I have two I use quite often; both have been shot enough that they have proven themselves to me. I don't think the design is a bad one- only the execution at times.

I envy you....

A tig welder will fix the bolt in short order.

As will drilling and tapping the right spot, and installing a stout screw.

And the ejector and extractor failures are mostly caused by lack of cleaning. I recently had some extractor issues with my 700 and it was caused by brass getting behind the hook. Same thing happens with the ejector. I will say I have had this particular 700 since 1991 and its in its third tube. I never once cleaned the bolt in that time and never had a failure till now. Not bad considering it's been 23 years and it has been hunted quit a bit from Alaska to MT and here in the UP.

Remington actions have the fastest "lock time". That's why they're preferred. But sniper rifles are custom built on selected actions. Nothing is "off the shelf" like it's bought at a Walmart.

Yeah, I've had the same basic experience. Generally I flush out the bolt face when I clean the bore, but on some 700's I don't clean the bore very often!

The Army buys their M24 and M24E1 rifles from Remington, Army smiths don't build them.

The only thing a good gunsmith does to a 700 is blueprint the action. Mine are stock firing pins and springs, ejectors, extractors and even the trigger is stock. The trigger is the weak link IME as I've worn out a few sears.

A custom 700 is "off the shelf" as far as parts, except for touching up the back of the lugs and sleeving the firing pin, blueprinting.



I use a toothbrush and solvent on the bolt face and extractor. Put a squirt of Rem Oil on the ejector plunger and work it in and out.

Like I said, the only time I get brass flow into the plunger is if my loads are a little hot (due to being on the edge combined with a hot day). I did have to use a cleaning rod to extract a few cases at the SRM because the extractor was not able to grab my OVER PRESSURE stuck fired cases, but that was my fault.

Ask Dogshooter!!!

I was going to write a lengthy tome here but stopped & will say that orig. 98's reign. Easy to load, chamber, clean, fix, shoot & handle. Also you can get basic parts that fit most anywhere on the planet. Sounds like Bell @ Corbett, back to my chair and books.-Muddy

It's kind of interesting that some 'smiths will silver braze various parts; sights for example- rather than drilling and tapping them..........for a more secure attachment. The problem I see with the bolt handles is that they aren't all the same. The ones that are good are very good. Unfortunately a percentage of them don't get processed well and are faulty. Of course it is a percentage of those which end up failing in totality (while some undoubtedly manage to last for the duration of the relatively little use that some of the rifles get.)

The fault is not in the design of the system used since silver brazing properly executed can achieved strengths of over 100,000 lbs/sq in. The problem is that Remington has chosen not to control quality as some of us might hope they would. Can they? I would bet they can. Do they? I would imagine they do in specific instances - the military contracts I would hope. I would be surprised if they didn't also pay extra attention to the bolts for rifles destined for their Safari type rifles and perhaps other of the bigger calibers.

It seems pretty clear that some of the failures we've seen pictured suffered from a lack of or inadequate capillary wetting of the surfaces between parts. Cleanliness and fitment are paramount in getting more that a super-superglue bond.

I have sometimes wondered if the M700 Phil Shoemaker wrote about years ago in a Wolfe Publishing periodical ended up in the stream bed where they found it - sans attached bolt handle- by intent or by accident. (I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to come all the way to Alaska, perhaps a dreamed of lifetime hunt, only to have the rifle become useless. The picture of a fellow giving said rifle the heave-ho into the nearest body of water isn't hard to imagine.)

John,

I was under the impression that the bolt body was too thin to provide enough thread engagement for screws to work. Where would this screw be located?

TIG welding seems like a simple solution.

Anyone want to donate their 700 bolts for force vs displacement testing? I've got a material test frame at work and we can compare: factory brazed vs screwed vs welded.

We could make dummy samples, but the actual bolts would be more entertaining .

Given today's Six Sigma and ISO standards, I wonder if anyone would come out with a design that incorporates a brazed lap joint? Not exactly fool proof and difficult to test, although some claim that Remington tests each new bolt with a pneumatic test fixture to ensure that the bolt handle doesn't fall off.

Yet, we can see pics of detached handles on the interwebs and from our own forum members? The pics show voids in the brazed joint. But you can only see it once the handle falls off.

If we assume a 1% failure rate and 1-million rifles made, that's still 10,000 handles that fall off. 1% failure rate is acceptable for some designs but if starting from scratch I wouldn't choose a brazed lap joint that is difficult to perform a quality check.

Any QC or SQE people in the house?

Jason

And not to pick on the 700...

Brian Pearce has written about M70 handles falling off. And D'Arcy Echols noticed the same and states that all bolts that come to him get pinned.

M70 handles are also brazed...

That M-700 was the forth or fifth Remington I have seen fail. And I actually met a guy at SHOT who started telling me about his Alaskan moose hunt and the stream where they started. I asked if he or his buddy had lost a rifle and he said they had. I then not only told them what the rifle was but where he had lost it and it turned out to be the same rifle.

I have another friend who I have hunted with who used a custom M-700 that twice had the bolt handle pull off. He only uses factory ammo and the second time it came off he was simply closing the bolt in order to sight in at camp.
I have not sold any of my M-700's because of it but I also do not think it is worth the risk on a hunt for DG when there are more proven actions.

Klikitarik,

The 700 bolt handle would not be considered "idiot proof" or Poka-yoke by my company's standard, for the reasons you stated. Nor by many others today.

Jason

First off soldering and brazing are not the same thing. Soldering and brazing will not with stand 100,000 psi as Klikitarik posted. Welding is by far the strongest connection of the 3.

Glad I'm not the only one, but several entries, even from 700 users as to the various girations they go through to keep them operating and of course, Phil's comments, pretty much set, game and match...

I suppose rifle construction is related to rifle power...

Had a bolt handle come off (once). Have broken an extractor but have also replaced one on a Mex 98 (who knows what that rifle was subjected to previously) and honorable mention for those pure crap extractors (cast?) on the earlier M-70 Classics when introduced. I think that was in the 80's or 90's, I don't remember or care but kept the busted ones.

The bolt handle deal really nags me...

That sums it up for me as well.

I guess you only really have strong feelings about these things if they happen to you or see it happen to someone (first hand). Otherwise it's a bit abstract.

Anything can break of course but not much sense stacking odds against yourself.Humans are known as a species for ignoring lessons of the past.Americans in particular seem to like to buy things that will break,which is why manufacturers get to charge us more money for warranties,which tells us from the purchase they expect you will need it.

Much as I like and have used Remingtons,I won't build on one(except for varmints),and don't plan doing any serious hunts with one. Hunts are expensive.

Yep, and those Mr. Big opportunities that you dream about are rare, particularly on DIY stuff. This stuff always happens to me on desirable game--why not on the range or the bench--what are the odds?

Have not found a substitute for a 700 TI actioned flyweight...as least a build that the feel or look of something I want to use.

While am ranting, would include striker hits. I fully appreciate the 98's strategy of primer whacking...

I like model 700s I have several BUT while I have never had a handle come off I have had three extractors break. As a result have lost confidence in them and would never again trust an expensive hunt to one. I have never had a model 70 fail in any way in almost 50 years of using them.

I just got a Remington 660 .243 for the boy. I figured if the bolt handle and extractor lasted this long it should be a safe bet.

You are both right and wrong here. Of course welding is stronger (but can have certain localized issues in some applications due to more extreme heating). And of course soldering and brazing are not the same with solder generally being inferior to brazing strengthwise. Then again, silver brazing is sometimes erroneously called soldering - which it isn't. While I don't claim to know or have tested the strength of silver-brazed materials to the level stated, I do know that mild steel will fail and tear before a good brazed joint will - which puts it in the neighborhood of 50-60,000 perhaps. Or, you can take up your argument with the guys over at American Welding Society; they are the originators, I suppose, of the tests.

IMO silver brazed parts suffer the same erroneous concerns that cast steel parts do (Ruger stuff, Remington [and perhaps Winchester and others'] bolt handles, etc). They can be perfectly good, perhaps even superior, when done properly. Remington does seem to have some problems translating their mass-production techniques into "done properly" as consistently as we might wish. Let's not forget that it should be possible however. Carbide tipped tools of various kinds are frequently silver brazed by mass production - in China and Mexico even- and those tiny joints even tend to hold up to some pretty amazing abuses.

What is mild steel? I have been in the welding business for 43 plus years. Stella are listed in P groups and numbers. No where in a code book will the term "mild steel" be used. I doubt that brazing will hold more than 40,000 psi. Steels tensile strength quoted is a guaranty minimum and may well be below the maximum of any individual piece. The mill crest will give the tensile as tested at the mill.

High heat soldering and brazing both will induce stress, anytime steel is heated to the degree necessary to solder, braze the steel will shrink when it cools. Welds draw because of this shrinkage.
Most smiths that weld are rather crude when compared to the professionals that specialize in the welding trade.

Interesting attempt to play dumb there. You know as well as I do - and better than many perhaps- what mild steel refers to since it is a term of such common use....and not ignored in any sense by the AWS or any of many welding reference literature. You can find the strength aspects of various silver brazing materials and techniques among the AWS source materials and many reputable comprehensive welding resources. 100,000 psi tensile perhaps doesn't give full credit to the process in certain applications when correctly done. The bottom line is that I believe the fault lies with production at Remington not with the design. And perhaps there is a failure in the fit-up of the parts due to tolerances in what I think is an investment cast bolt handle. The fact that Winchester bolt failures are reported at a much lower rate suggests that it can be a good method and that it can be done well.

Therein lies the reason why many people have never seen this as an issue: it is a very good assembly method when done correctly - and yes, you could hammer on a bolt if the assembly was well done.

Show me the term "mild steel" in the Code any where, you can't it isn't a proper term. Most plate that one would commonly comes into contact with is A-36. Mild steel is a slang term with no true meaning. Most welding consumables will not hold 100,000 psi. 7018 will not, and no type of brazing will.

I'm not a steel expert, can barely strike an arc welding. But just for chuckles:

Mild Steel For Sale

edit: Actually meant to quote this link:

Steel terms

So is it A-36' X-42 or what? The term mild steel,has no meaning and is designed for those that don't know the difference.
I know the term is used, but it doesn't denote the exact steel, it does give the P- number or group the term "mild steel" is meaningless as to the exact steel referred too.

Yeah, they're using Mild Steel to describe A36 and 1018 in the second link I posted.

A-36 and 1018 has meaning.

Well. This thread started out as a testament to the 270 . And now here is an argument about hardness of steel. I guess I missed something in the middle

Funny stuff here. Mild steel is just as fair to use as about a thousand other terms we use daily and everyone understands exactly what we mean. In industries that use spec steel for everything they do, the vague terminology of "mild steel" probably doesn't cut it but when use to differentiate between steel that is alloyed or heat treated it means a lot. Not sure how this term even came up as nothing on a modern rifle is "mild steel" anyway. Bolts are made of various alloys, most common is 4140. Actions are made of martenistic grades of stainless steel or usually 4140 or some other high strength alloy that is similar. Not sure what bolts are treated to strength wise but certainly well over 100 KSI. As for brazing, I haven't seen any silver braze that exceeds 80 KSI but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The stuff I use is 70 KSI and it requires a LOT of heat to use so it probably would make the bolt softer than not at the point where it is brazed. I am sure they take care not to soften the head of the bolt which is the business end anyway.

Mod 700 bolts work out pretty well for the most part and the failure rate is certainly lower than 1%. But I am in the camp with Phil when it comes to the choice of what type of rifle to use on dangerous game or even on an expensive hunt where there is no replacement handy.

My custom actions have one piece bolts- it's a nice to have that much peace of mind anyway. I do hunt with a 700 all the time and the bolt still has the original bolt handle but a replaced extractor, bushed firing pin hole and lightened firing pin. It works perfect.

It just doesn't pay to take a bathroom break. This place can get exciting and informative all in the same thread.

Let's not lose sight of the point I was trying to make: silver braze methods can be very effective when done properly.

Mild steel is a low-carbon ungraded steel - which few people here could seriously distort by hand if a bolt handle were made of it (which they obviously aren't); a decent silver brazed joint is stronger than common low carbon (mild) steel. Period.

American Welding Society claims I'm wrong.....I was low

I brazed some elk tonight with a bacon wrap - wife loved it.

Bigwhoop, how rude of you, going off topic like this! I see this tread gotten a life of its own, now the question is will it top the Sniper Rifle thread?

I don't post here much but read with interest the article by the PH and the commentary by those in the forum. I started to question what kind of piece of junk I bought back in the 80's. I typically don't beat on my rifles too badly and am a bit anal about cleanliness. Today I decided to check the function of my M700 to see if I could replicate some of the failures some others were experiencing in the feeding/functioning department. In short, I tried to beat on it a bit. The test mule in question is a M700 BDL. The serial number on the receiver is B6764XXX and the barrel stamp is "H". I think the date of manufacture is about 1987. I bought the rifle new and the round count through the barrel is approximately 1850 as best I can tell when reviewing handloading data from the past. Caliber is .300 Win mag. The rifle is box stock with the exception of a little bit of trigger tweaking. It is currently wearing it's 3rd stock (factory BDL), on it's 2nd scope ( shook the innards loose on the 1st Redfield) and it's 2nd bottom metal (broke the original floor plate tab). After a practice session of about 20 cycles of manipulating the bolt as fast as I could, 2 rounds were used to check functioning; an empty case was chambered and a dummy round inserted into the magazine. The COL of the dummy round was 3.542 as indicated by the dial caliper. With rifle at waist level and hand on bolt, I operated the action as fast as I could with the empty in the chamber and dummy in the magazine and here is what I found:

In 20 hard and fast cycles all empty brass in the chamber ejected without a hitch and the dummy round chambered flawlessly.

When working the bolt hard and fast with the dummy round chambered after the 1st empty round was ejected, 6 failures were experienced.

Failures included 3 rounds that were re chambered,2 that stove piped and 1 that actually jammed on the face of the receiver.

Condition of the fired case was pretty good. Rim showed a little roughness but the body and belt were in pretty good shape. Condition of the dummy round was a bit worst. Bullet nose deformed from hitting the receiver. The body and rim showed considerable more wear than the empty. ????

Total cycles of the bolt with the empty/dummy was a bit over 40.

After removing the bolt, very small pieces of brass were noticed on the bolt face.

I know the sample size is way too small to be definitive but is interesting to me none the less. I have a late manufacture M700 short action and a New Haven M70 Featherweight CFR in 6.5x55 I'm going to look at next. Don't have any Ruger 77's to try........yet!

bartman: Conclusions?

Rifle actions can sometimes behave in a different manner when operated easily and sedately, than they do operated hard and fast.....and sometimes differently if operated from the shoulder than at waist level(this more due to how we operate it from that position than anything else).

Did I read it right that you did your test with only two rounds but not a full magazine?

Still, it seems to me that 6 failures out of 20 attempts is pretty high.

I did much the same thing in live round rapid fire with a Rem 700 KS MR 7 Rem Mag and full magazine and it worked fine.

I've done a real test (full magazine) with several 700's with no problems, but sometimes such tests do reveal feeding flaws--though in my experience they happen more often in controlled-feed rifles that have been rebarreled to some other cartridge than the original. Have also seen some factory CRF's that basically wouldn't feed at all, usually chambered for rounds not shaped like a .30-06 or 7mm Remington Magnum. As an example, one was a Ruger 77 Mark II in .350 Remington Magnum. It took an entire afternoon for me to get to feed decently--but not nearly as slickly as the average Remington 700 .30-06.

One thing I've started to wonder about 700 bolt handles coming off: How many hunters who've experienced this mostly hunt in wetter climates? What I'm guessing is an imperfect brazing job will weaken due to rust forming between the handle and bolt body, and undermine the brazing.

I live in Montana, which overall is pretty dry, and when I have hunted in wetter weather it's been on visits of at most two weeks to other places. Which may be why I've never had a 700 bolt handle come off--and may not.

I also know a gunsmith in West Virginia, one of those wetter places, who's had to replace quite a few 700 extractors over the years. Part of the reason they break there, he says, is because hunters don't consistently protect their rifles with some sort of oil or other rust preventative. The chambers are often pitted, and the extractors are often pitted as well. Extraction is more difficult due to the pitted chamber, and the pitted extractors sometimes break.

Condensing all this information, if I want as much reliablity in a rifle as I can get get, and reasonably good accuracy, what do I start with, and what do I do to it? Cartridges would be 30/06, maybe 7/08, very unlikely to be a belted cartridge.

For absolute reliability I prefer a 98 Mauser action, either commercial or a good military conversion. That's just me, but an article on why will be appearing in SPORTS AFIELD soon.

I just can't help but chuckle. I guess I would have been surprised if that WASN'T your answer, but what is so amusing is that after all these years, a 98 Mauser in 30/06 or 7x57 (please don't tell Ingwe I said that) is likely one of the best choices under the sun, taking reliability, gas handling, and a bunch of other things into consideration.
I am talking for the average relatively serious hunter who beats the bush up and down and around the Rocky Mountains, not the long range guys who shoot stuff at distances measured in fractions of miles or the specialist like Pat (Scenarshooter).

Fred, oddly enough when I was still at the LGS me and the gunsmiths had the same conversation and came up with the same conclusions. If I was gonna have one big game rifle, use it hard and long�it would be on a 98...

John assuming you are right about wet, dirty places, rust,gunk, etc etc.....isn't that the reason the Mauser design found so much favor in the first place,and over the years for reliable function in wet,tropical conditions,as well as up north? Assuming again, of course that the 98 was set up correctly in the first place.

My memory is that Paul Mauser also designed and patented other action styles reminiscent of PF Model 70's and 700's, neither of which proved as reliable as the 98.

The times I have seen Rem 700 extractors fail the extractor did not break, but pulled through the brass rim; PF M70 and Savage extractors just broke.

Seems to me that brazing on bolt handles just adds to the (potential)drama.

I agree not all CRF's are created equal....lots of them suffer from sloppy and indifferent assembly,cast parts,and ill fitting magazines and followers. Any of this stuff can give a guy fits.

Must be getting fussy and cranky in my old age.


I have a pair of "new" (to me) pre 64 M70 FW's that I will take to the range and run hard to see if they work.Far as I can tell they are all factory original.

What the hell is a "Ganyana" anyways?

Me too. I can't wait to read the article. I've got four identical 98s that are my go to rifles for various reasons. It started with calling a gunsmith about 10 years ago to build a Mauser .375 that was more the weight of the average .338 (I was thinking 7.5-8 pounds). The rifle came in and was 6.5 pounds bare, but recoil, while heavy is tolerable, so it has become a favorite. Now have identical setups at identical weights and balance in .270, .30-06 and a 9.3x62 in the works.

Bob,

The first "claw" extractor in Mausers was in the 1893. Before that they mostly resembled the post-64 Model 70's, but required more frequent cleaning to keep working reliably.

From what I understand (not having seen it myself) 700 extractors don't usually break when extracting, but while being pushed over the case's rim. They're actually designed to grip the rim more firmly if the case sticks in the chamber, as does the 98 extractor--and is why both extractors sometimes tear off part of the rim.

This isn't true of the claw extractors on the Model 70, Ruger 77 CRF actions, or many other CRF's. I have seen some of those "jump" the rim on a stuck case, but the case can usually still be extracted by closing the bolt and then pressing hard against the front of the extractor while opening the bolt again.

700 extractors are easily replaced, in fact more easily than a claw extractor, if you know what you're doing. I've taken an extra 98 claw extractor along on a number of hunts with 98-actioned rifles, and never had to use it--but have also hunted with 700's here and there without taking along a spare extractor, and never had one break.

Have heard that if a 700 extractor is going to break, it often does so within the first few boxes of ammo, probably because it was defective from the factory--another reason to shoot a new rifle quite a bit before hunting with it!

My two M700's were purchased in Southwest Idaho and only used in this arid location. I've had three bolt handles fall off in total but I never mention the third as I beat it with a piece of 2X4 so can't really blame the rifle - NOT a hot load btw but jammed by the locking safety somehow, I never did figure out how it jammed. But the two that did fall off just plain fell off with no undue force applied at all, just what one would use to chamber a properly sized round. Chamber, close bolt, handle comes away from the bolt body. Surprise!

The cause is really pretty simple - an improper mating of the two surfaces and/or sloppy brazing. If the concave surface of the handle does not match the convex surface of the bolt properly the attachment is only at one or two small points. Combine that with sloppy brazing and there's the recipe for a bolt handle falling off.

The gunsmith that fixed both of them simply ground the bolt handle to mate completely with the bolt body and silver soldered it back on. He told me that with a properly soldered on handle that the handle would bend before the solder joint would break and I'm sure he's right.


It's not that the 700 is a terrible rifle but it has design flaws that, if not properly maintained or not properly assembled in the first place, provide several points of failure in the operating cycle of feeding, firing, extracting and ejecting. A two piece enclosed trigger that can fire on safety release, an ejector pin that can jam, a tiny little spring on the bolt stop and a two piece bolt and handle. If properly assembled and kept relatively clean they do provide years of trouble free service as several million users can verify - including me on the majority of 700's I've owned. We should probably give kudos to Remington that they made so many and have had relatively so few problems.


Any rifle will have possible points of failure. My Model 70 from their Custom Shop would stick the ejector in the slot. There was a burr on the edge of the slot that prevented the blade from rising every time. Some 200 and 600 grit paper on the slot and ejector blade fixed that forever but it was certainly irksome to pay that kind of money for something that wasn't function checked sufficiently at the factory.

But it one expects to put their skin on the line it is definitely a good idea to eliminate as many points of failure as possible right from the start. Most of the bitching about our rifles(and you can throw in self defense handguns here) is about theoretical or possible flaws but Mr. Murphy loves to test theories and possibilities.

I bought a Yugo 24/47 Mauser a couple of years ago and I can see why folks love their 98 Mausers. Even though it is definitely "rough and ready" - THAT is a frickin' CRF rifle! It was built for the 8x57 and it is just as it came from factory. I can't double feed it for love nor money. I can just kiss the ejector coming back and lay the empty case on top of the next round but that has to be done deliberately, any normal operation of the bolt throws the case clear and any half measures just feed the fired case back in the chamber. Any half feeding of the next round won't jam it, it absolutely does not leave the magazine until the extractor has hold of it. It groups about 2 1/2" on a really good day and has a trigger that finally breaks after a l-o-n-g travel, but I really like that rifle. It's solid with a capital S.

Lots of rifles work well because, honestly, we just don't stress them as much as a PH going after dangerous game - or a soldier in the field might have done. But even with moderate "hardships" in the field I've had pine needles get in the action, a Model 70 safety in "bolt locked" position get popped off by a backpack and open the bolt, smokestacks on feeding (Model 700 still chambered as it came from the factory), and I haven't been on near as many adventures as a lot of folks here.


Oh well, not telling anybody anything they don't know, just sort of rambling as I drink my coffee.

I'd love to see an article that describes strengths and weaknesses of various rifles, with detailed analysis and actual tests (feeding, gas handling, etc). Probably not what the rifle manufacturers would like to see though.

I've been keeping a running list in my head of real and perceived issues from across the interwebs and my limited experience:

• Howa/Witherbee = bolt stop screw breaks
• 700 = extractor, brazed handle, new trigger breaks in half
• Salvage = feeds like crap, trigger deactivates if pushed laterally
• Marlin X = bolt binds/jams if worked really hard
• Win 70 = brazed handle, extractor bends
• T/C Venture = trigger breaks in half
• Tikkler = poor gas handling
• Ruger 77/Hawkeye = best SS hard use rifle ever
  

Jason

4th point,

Only SOME of the post-'63 M70 extractors bend. Haven't heard of that with a pre-'64, and eventually the soft extractors on the "new" CRF M70's were changed to good ones.

You can also add the pre-'64 Model 70 to the list, since basically there's no gas handling.

I also saw a trigger blade break on a Browning A-Bolt.

In my earlier days mixing it the bench rest shooters, they several times, showed my broken 700 extractors and also said many are broken when installed new and the 2 pieces held in place by the lock pin which is why they often failed on that first box or 2 of ammo as MD outlined. Many Aussies were fitting Sako extractors for that reason decades ago.

As for bolt breakages, I never heard of it until I came on this site though I have seen more mis-feeds and extraction problems from Mauser actions and seldom from push feeds which usually have more issues related to magazine lips securing or releasing cartridges when the action is rebarreled to something different than the parent case.

I am certainly would not challenge another persons experience but because of John's summation on weather conditions being a contributor, find that aspect fascinating as I come from an arid country and have never lived or hunted in a wet climate apart from sambar hunting in the Victorian Alps, which can get very wet but not on every hunting trip.

John

Great info John, thanks.

Jason

Updated list...

• Howa/Witherbee = bolt stop screw breaks
• 700 = extractor, brazed handle, new trigger breaks in half
• Salvage = feeds like crap, trigger deactivates if pushed laterally
• Marlin X = bolt binds/jams if worked really hard
• Win 70 = brazed handle, soft extractor (some post-64), no gas handling
• T/C Venture = trigger breaks in half
• Tikkler = poor gas handling
• Browning A-bort = trigger blade breaks
• Ruger 77/Hawkeye = best SS hard use rifle ever
  

My CRF experience is not as great as most since I'm left handed and until recently few CRF rifles were available to us.

But I do understand that the geometry of them has to be right - they are a total system and all parts of that system have to interact with each other properly - the magazine has to be right for the cartridges, the extractor has to be tensioned right; even the magazine follower has a role. Almost all factory LH Winchesters I've owned will not adequately grab the cartridge rim out of the magazine, particularly the last one. That's another bug, all LH CRF rifles I've seen have right handed magazine followers. But anyway, unless the extractor hook is tensioned enough it won't grab the case rim. I could feed a round halfway into the chamber, withdraw the bolt and the case would just lie there on top of the follower or the next round depending on which side it was. The round had to be almost fully chambered before it was pushed up under the hook sufficiently.

One of the most positive Model 70's I've owned was a .270 WSM Featherweight - those rounds would positively jump up under that extractor when they left the magazine, but I understand that the first WSM rifles were buggers to get to feed right in CRF actions.

Another one was a Model 70 .375 H&H. I bought some Williams steel extractors to replace the MIM models on factory Winchesters and by accident put the .473 case head extractor on the .375 bolt. That tighter spring steel extractor absolutely held those cases in place! I was really tempted to leave it there.

Anyway, as MD has stated in various ways, if a rifle is reliable then it's reliable, if not then it's not, same with scopes. It will usually show you early on where it will break or it won't break even after years of use (not counting severe abuse).



But really, after going through a lot rifles, if'n I could do it all over (get my young eyes back but still have to be left handed), I'd take one of the two K98's my father brought back from Europe, throw on a sporter stock and a peep sight, have a gunsmith straighten the bolt handle - which is not hard to work even for a left hander - but otherwise just leave it as perfectly designed, properly interacting military 8X57, flag safety and all, and do all the hunting I've done all over again.

I like your thinking on the Ruger 77 Mk II/Hawkeyes; that�s why they compose my hunting rifle battery.

Don�t know of any major mechanical (or even minor mechanical) problems with them. Does anyone else know of any?

Also, add me to the list of folks with a broken Remington extractor. It happened on a nearly new rifle, and was quickly replaced. The extraction still isn�t the best with that action, which leads me to believe the groove the extractor fits into may be a bit oversized and allows some play. Perhaps?

Fairweather hardly describes our conditions here - so it undoubtedly affects what works well or not- just as 100 yards might be a long shot in some places while 400 isn't out of the ordinary in others. In any case I tested a trusted rifle some a couple of years ago; it was a combination of timing and purpose. We had taken a ride by snowmachine in late winter, a family trip of about 500 miles. It wasn't a hunting trip but I brought a rifle along just in case, a Ruger stainless MK II; it was zippered away in a canvas gun case and then wrapped in a blue tarp along with a pair of magnesium snowshoes, a Come-a-long, and a length of rope. The whole bundle was secured to the sled where it was easily available but it surely couldn't come loose or get lost either; it was pretty unobtrusive and definitely not obvious in nature.

When we arrived home after the trip, we didn't initially unload the sleds. One of the first things I learned was that a family member had become gravely ill and that I would be traveling - and making needed preparations to do so. The sled - including rifle - were neglected. Before it was all said and done I had flown over 10K miles over a two week period and my 'bundle of unknowns' were still on the sled. Winter had turned to the early stages of spring when things get wet and messy; whatever could happen probably already had. Then we had to deal with a compulsory move from the house we had lived in for 14 years.

Without making a long story too much longer, the sled ended up going through the spring thaw and rains. With plenty of other issues to address I figured I might as well test whatever hadn't already been tested a little longer. Finally in July I decided to look to see how well things had survived inside the bundle. I rather expected that the old Leupold M8 4X scope might have fogged inside the damp conditions of the tarp; I half expected to see the stainless rifle a bit pitted and maybe stiff to work. The only thing that happened to that rifle was a bit of staining to some of the carbon steel pins holding things together inside. Everything was thoroughly damp and 'sweaty' but even the nickeled cartridges and Barnes XLCs in the magazine were unaffected.

Ruger is hard to beat for hassle free.

I know of three different Model 77 stainless steel 350 Rem Mag rifles, owned by friends of mine, that all had serious feeding problems. Two were sent back to Ruger, and came home not much better than they left. The other one sits in the back of a safe.

Three sixty year-old 9.3X62 Model 640 Husqvarnas solve the problem perfectly.

Ted

How different is a Kimber MT 84M from a Mauser?

Off the top of my head, the Kimber has:

• round receiver vs square
• sandwiched lug (like 700 but somewhat hidden on S/A)
• c-collar, but I don't think its quite the same as 98
• bolt body vents to left raceway w/o much of a baffle
• enclosed trigger (but easily adjusted for weight, sear engagement, and overtravel
• 3-pos safety
• bolt handle screwed onto body
• blind mag

I have one in 7-08 and love it.

Thanks. Just to clarify, I have a Kimber, very familiar. I just don't know much about the Mausers.

Jason:
The issue with the M-70 extractor that I was referring to was the M-70 Classic introduced around or in 1992 (wilki).

They broke right at the hook when snapped over a cartridge head--they were too brittle--they appeared to be cast.

I bought a couple replacements from Winchester which did exactly the same thing and then IIRC, got a good one from Wisner.

Other folks had the same issue at the same time.

Which goes to show, the design means squat when quality of materials or workmanship is compromised...

I "think" Williams made machined extractors for Win for awhile.

The BACO extractors are now MIM?

No clue on Baco...basically a 98 slut with an M-70 or two...:)

Yes on Williams, he used to post on 24.

No. Those are spring steel...unless something has changed.

On any Classic, look for one or two tiny little lines etched onto the nose of the extractor. If you can see those(or, for those with lousy eyesight,feel them with your fingernail), it's a MIM.

Some very late Classics had spring steel extractors.

The Mausers are a very robust design no doubt and if you can find a commercial mauser all the better!

I prefer a mod 70 over the others for several reasons including the cone breach, best trigger ever and pretty slick functioning. I have only owned them in 220 Swift,30-06 and 300 H&H. These feed flawlessly and I have no complaints about them. I hear gas handling is marginal. I dunno- I have separated a couple of H&H cases and didn't burn my face. Maybe I have been lucky. IF I want a rifle that is ultra accurate, I prefer a 700 clone as they seem to be much easier to tune and make shoot well. I have never seen a pre-64 that shot sub .5 MOA; certainly not my Swift.

Dennis I agree on the M70.They have worked for me in lots of places,have the features I want and if the components are made of good stuff they are reliable.

I have had quite a few pre 64's and Classics and while I have shot sub 1/2" groups with them (some one holers), it isn't a design I'd use for a super accurate rifle.Generally though I can't recall many that I could not coax into some very good grouping,and that includes staying sub MOA to 500-600 yards. So they work pretty good as I doubt I am much better than that myself.

Dennis,

I blew a primer in a M70 Classic .308 (still don't know why) which is supposedly an improvement over the pre-'64, because it has a "gas block" on the bolt that supposedly fills the left lug raceway. Got a good blast of hot gas and a few brass particles right in the face, and was very happy to be wearing glasses. Have had a couple of cases let go in 98 Mausers and only felt a slight puff of hot air past my left cheekbone.

Would guess that a lot would depend on which part of the case let go in a pre-'64 M70, but am not crazy about finding out. However, would also guess a flanged bolt shroud (like the one on 98's) might help. Dunno why Winchester didn't do that, except possible patent conflicts.

Alaska Arms makes a Model 70 style trigger for 98's, and it's very good, though its also relatively easy to modify military 98 triggers for a very good pull. Have owned a couple custom 98's with that done, one by Bill Sukalle and one by P.O. Ackley, and did it myself on my .338.

John,

I've looked at that gas block attached to the bolt on the 70, and it "seems" like a good idea but apparently is limited in function. Glad you didn't get hurt. These rifles vent the bolt body to the left raceway, right? I thought the PF post-64 vent to the magazine.

Kimbers vent the bolt body to the left raceway as well which is something I don't understand. And no flange on the bolt shroud.

Jason

Mauser bolts have vent holes into the magazine as well--but in my experience more gas tends to head down the left raceway, as the only gas that would divert into the magazine would have to go through the firing pin hole. It's much more likely to get into the left raceway.

Have blown a few primers and cases in Remington 700 actions and never felt a thing.

Three Rings of Steel (bolt nose) and no extractor cut does its job! I've never owned a 700 but might add one in the near future.

What do you think about the RAR for gas handling? The fat bolt seems like one big baffle. IIRC there is a slot in the bolt body (for bolt stop?) but this is oriented at ~12 o'clock with the bolt closed. Any gas going down the cut would(should) vent into the ejection port.

Any stainless Mauser 98 action makers?

Hate to run contrary to conventional wisdom, but I saw results of a case letting go in a Rem 700(badly blown primer and wrong chambering resulting in excess headspace) last year.

The guy got a face full of gas and particles and, like John, good thing he was wearing glasses as his face was peppered and bleeding near the eye.My wife and daughter gave first aid...I have a picture of this somewhere.

Apparently it seems that one caveat to all this (seldom mentioned)is that the case had better help seal off the chamber and hold the gases back, or the three rings don't do a guy any good.It was apparent hat that escaping gas found its way back through the bolt or down the outside of the loading port an into the shooters face.

One thing it taught me is that you don't want to be standing behind any of them when a case lets go...you never know what's gonna happen and there are different degrees of "bad stuff".

Good point Bob.

Salvage seems tough to beat in terms of baffles and venting.

I had a case go on my while shooting my Savage 10FP in .308. Other than sounding kind of odd and then seeing smoke rising from the bolt nothing happened to me. Guess I should not take that protection for granted.

I've 'popped' a couple 358 Winchesters in a 375 cal 350 Rem Mag wildcat; this rifle a Ruger MK II M77. It's not a high pressure deal when it's happened but the smoke seems to rise from the mag well after the fact.

Rick,

Hope you have been ok.

Ganyana translates to "wild dog" as I understand.

Keep in mind Don probably has about as much experience in New Mexico as you do in Zimbabwe. (He is a PH from Zim) Most of the good PHs in Zim will get you as close as possible which for the most part is close, I do not recall taking any shots in Africa further than 125 yards, except for one on a hartebeest. Hell, I know hunters that feel it is unethical to shoot a buffalo further than 50 yards. I am sure he writes from his perspective of being a Zim PH for most of his career.

Bob,

Yeah, you can cause gas "leaks" in about any action with the wrong ammo.

When I was living in Lander, Wyoming in the 1970's, the then-governor of the state blew up a Weatherby Mark V, which is pretty tough to do. He was taking part in the annual One-Shot Antelope Hunt with a .270 Weatherby Magnum, and chambered a .270 Winchester round. It blew the rifle apart in several ways, and injured him some. I don't think any action will stand up to a dumb-ass combination like that. The correct head-size at least minimizes gas leaks, but there's virtually nothing stopping the hot gas when it can go around a smaller case.

I count my lucky stars that I haven't had any rifles blow up or send hot, particle laded gasses into my face considering the hundreds of thousands of rounds I have fired over the years. My general opinion is that one should NEVER fire a gun unless wearing glasses- even hunting. Eyes really can't be repaired nor replaced.

LOL! It's hard to get good help. Even when your the Governor

Twice I've had .270's blow out at the web in a Ruger 77. That while shooting a right handed bolt left handed. Both times I was very thankful for my eyeglasses. They took the brunt.

My wife was shooting a Remington 700 7mm08 with Remington factory ammo when one of the rounds blew the primer. Odd for a factory round but it can happen. Makes you wonder what happened at the factory. There was a loud noise and some smoke but she didn't feel a thing other than some increased recoil. No gases in the face or anything like that. It took some beating with a hammer to get the bolt open and the bolt face was slightly dinged but we're still using the rifle after having it checked by a gunsmith. Perhaps we were just lucky. I've never had any problems with the dozen or so Rem 700's I've used over the years.

Thanks Mike. Hope all is well in your world as well. Say hello to our friend in New Iberia. Remind him that his man crush on Jack Bauer is fine.

Interesting about the Ganyana. I thought a Ganyana may need penicillin to cure.

JB,

I saw a .270 win fired in a 7MM Rem Mag. Rifle was a 700.

Shooter got plenty of gas and a few particles that drew a little blood. Rifle was fine and is still in use.

Had a chrono set up and the bullet was going 1900 fps if my memory is correct. Probably a very good thing that the bullet was .007 smaller than the bore and that kept pressures lower than might have happened if the bullet fit the barrel.

A kid and his dad learned to keep ammo separate and only one type on the bench.

John;
I trust this finds you well this calm Sunday evening sir.

Personally I've been holding onto a Browning BBR when a primer blew - old RWS primers that we stopped using forthwith - and then an eventful day when I had cases break on both a Ruger No 1 and Ruger 77 tang model.

The bulk powder I'd purchased had gone "off" in a fashion I've yet to see repeated and the result deteriorated the brass cases.

This is repeat photo pair John, but even a robust action such as a B78 can't take the wrong ammunition fed into it sometimes.

.250 shot in a .22-250.



Anyway John I've got to go grill some deer meat for supper so need to go, but all the best to you in the upcoming week and may all our ammo be the correct stuff from here on in.

Dwayne

That's true John. My guy was lucky it was only a blown primer....270 in a 280 chamber.

Bro. Dwayne,

Greetings from God's Greatest Effort in Creation, the Yukon! Trust this finds you and yours enjoying the deer steaks.

Clearly it is not without some particular effort that one manages to chamber a 250 in a 22-250. I for one would be interested, as I have had experience in trying to chamber a 280 Rem. into a 270 Win.

Best,
Ted

Good point John.Cardinal Rule.... Too easy for us to get sloppy with multiple rifles going.

I have learned the same lesson, but in much easier and safer fashion: Many years ago I was range-testing a .338 Winchester Magnum and a .416 Remington Magnum at the same time. Was braced firmly while shooting the .416 when it went off with a tiny "pop" and the bullet kicked up dust about 15-20 yards downrange. Turned out a .338 doesn't produce much pressure or velocity in a .416 chamber!

Hey it happens to us all at one point or another!

Witnessed a 375 H-H go off in a 458 Win mag while doing range duty. No fan fare, a low pfft and a humiliated look on the shooters face. He did have a nice "chamber cast" though. You could clearly see the start of the rifling and the throat on the expanded brass.

Only popped a primer once. Vanguard in 300Bee. Only felt stout recoil.(7828/200 sierra) Pulled the rest and stuffed 110 RN carbine bullets on top and shot them. Wished I had chronoed the load. Would hold less than an inch at a hundred yards, and a grey puff behind the target! Bet it would red mist a squirrel.

This happened to me last year...




It was a 70 year old ex US military case from a batch of ammo I pulled.

It was in a stainless Zastava - ie commercial Mauser pattern rifle.

It was very unpleasant. A full face of gas and powder. No brass thankfully. Wasn't wearing glasses, dodged a bullet there.



The action was full of grit and shidt as well as you'd expect, but I still shot two feral billy goats later that morning.

So the Mauser 98 action too is not infallible. I wonder what the result would have been in another action?

Yep....

Back again with the latest rifle abuse! Here is what I found:

Test vehicle: M700 .308 VTR short action. Rifle purchased new in about 2007???? Ammo COL 2.83 indicated by dial caliper. Protocol was the same, a spent case in the chamber and a loaded round n the magazine. The rifle was at waste level with hand on bolt, and cycled as quickly as possible. 40 cycles made hard and fast. No failures exhibited. All empty cases extracted and ejected. All live rounds chambered. All live rounds extracted and ejected. Just to check, the magazine was topped off with 4 and the action run hard and fast. 3 failures resulted. Failures were all the result of the bolt not picking up the round from the magazine as it was being closed. Total cycles 40, round in chamber 1 in magazine. 20 full 4 round magazines cycled.

Test vehicle New Haven M70 6.5x55 Featherweight. Rifle purchased new in about 2004. CRF model. Cartridge COL 3.100. Empty in chamber, live round in magazine. 40 cycles made extracting spent round and chambering fresh cartridge. No failures. Magazine topped off with 4 and cycled hard and fast. No failures to extract or feed. A total of 5 full magazines cycled.

Test vehicle Marlin Model 336 30/30. Rifle purchased new within the last couple of years but I can't remember what year (old age setting in). This model is the "Remlin" or ""Marlington" version. 6 rounds of factory ammunition were inserted into the magazine. The 1st round was chambered, All 6 were cycled as fast as possible. No failures exhibited. All cycled and ejected. 83 cycles complete I think.

My right arm is tired! Going to try to find a Ruger next.

Interesting Bartman! Keep it up and thanks for posting results.

Seems you are finding they behave differently operated fast and hard in some cases,and with a full magazine?

The nastiest "wrong cartridge" scenario I've seen was a NY hunter who fired a .308 Win round in a .270 Win M77 Ruger Mk II. Gas vented into magazine well, mag box expanded and split the stock in two.
Shooter was not wearing eye protection and got a little gas in his eye. The bolt could not be opened with a big hammer.

Ouch!

bobnob,

That doesn't sound like fun.

Does the Zastava have a c-collar? I thought the Yugos were similar to a Mouser, but not a true 98.

Jason

Jason, no it does not. Unless my memory is faulty.

I haven't run an actual test like Bartman has, but IME cycling troubles have happened more with a full magazine. I learned early in my reloading experience to run the first reloads in any new batch through the rifle as a test to make sure they cycle and chamber, etc. no matter how many times I have proven that recipe.

A friend of mine who was on the Marine shooting team told me that he loaded his 1911 one short of a full magazine because it cycled better that way from the first shot. I do the same: three rounds in a four round capacity magazine when hunting, etc. When the magazine is full that first round is stacked hard and is harder to get out and feed smoothly.


Oops: this posted before I was done so am editing to finish it.

Not trying to be a dick and I believe MD touched on this a bit perhaps somewhere....

The unbroached collar is an advantage over the later 98s if you believe metallurgy hasn't advanced since the 50's...:)

Not a 100% faithful copy that's right Jason and Bob. Not sure if / how that would affect the gas handling.

In my case I learned a few lessons about eye protection and not using WW2 era brass.

I mentioned the C-collar since many believe that it provides better gas containment compared to the H-collar.

understood...

The smaller bolt face Remington 700's do not handle gas as well as the magnums. This is due to the fact that the side wall of the bolt nose is thicker on the smaller bolt faces and does not obuterate as easily in the event of a case failure.

Ted;
It's good to hear from you sir, I trust this finds you and yours well up there - no argument from me on your location's status in Creation either Ted.

Getting a clear story of how the chap managed to chamber the .250 in the .22-250 was always hampered by a couple factors unfortunately.

For starters both the original owner of the firearm and then my shooting mentor who ended up with it after the incident are both long gone now, so further investigation from the principals is out of the question.

The shooter was a local hobby gunsmith who's work was really very good when he was in his prime. If memory serves he stopped shooting not that long after the incident and passed on shortly thereafter too.

According to my late friend, the shooter related that he indeed had to pull quite hard on the lever to close the action - I'm thinking it must have pushed the bullet into the case somehow as he did so.

Other damage to the firearm was considerable by the way - he never did find end of the hammer for instance, the fore stock and butt stock were split and the lever/trigger guard broke off as well. Somehow the shooter only had jangled nerves and some minor cuts and bruises on his shooting hand.

Anyway Ted, I know that's not much information, but it's all I have, so sorry about that.

All the best of our Lord's blessings to you and yours this summer and in the upcoming hunting season too Ted.

Dwayne

Back in 2001 Ross Seyfried wrote of a fellow that did just about the opposite; managed to chamber a S'em Mag in a .270 Weatherby chambered rifle. The unhappy result was barrel, action, bits of stock, scope and mounts being flung about with great enthusiasm. I went back into Rifle Magazine files and managed to find the article. Here is a picture of the result followed by a link to the article. Enjoy.



Link to: How to Blow Up a Rifle

I'll bet that Zastava had a commercial cocking piece housing without the flange around the edge. I had a very similar looking case not once but twice with an FR 8 and all I felt was a little peppering on my forehead. The flange on the cocking piece diverted the gas up and away from my face.

That will be the last time I shoot Cabelas bulk reloads.

If I am going to use a Mauser it's going to have a thumb cut and a C ring. And not all Mauser's had soft steel. One of the experts might chime in, but I believe the VZ-24 had decent steel.

I remember the 1909 Argentine Mausers as being good quality steel and heat treatment. It's been a long time since I played with any though.

Bob

You know being a unrepentant groundhog hunter in my past I have wondered why I consider long range sniping at a groundhog sporting but not so much with big game. I finally rationalized that it had to do with the bullet vs the body weight of the animal. In other words even using a small cartridge like a 222 I was using a 50gr. bullet at 3000 fps on a 12 lb. animal. that's a bullet/body weight ration of about 1:1700 ie. even a marginal gut shot on a ground hog is pretty fatal. So to create the same ratio on a 150lb deer you would have to shoot a 650gr bullet at 3000fps and for a 600 lb elk you would need a 2500gr bullet at 3000 fps. So basically that's the reason I am not sure about the woodchuck analogy. Basically I discourage the ultra long range shooting simply because it inflates the margin of error on first shot bullet placement just like shooting at running game does.

I always like to refer to that Seyfried article when the "Winchesters are dangerous when a case lets go" crowd start to gather.

On the other hand, a chuck is a tiny target compared to the vital zones of a bull elk. There goes the margin of error advantage...

And that same rational is suitable when thinking of having to shoot an adult bull moose at 500 yards, and being prepared for it mentally and practically by using a rifle and cartridge fully capable.

I've land travelled 1600 kms by truck or auto to Northern Ontario on several occasions for that purpose. What I discovered was the scores of seemingly endless logging roads, hundreds of small lakes and bogs. But also clear-cut areas where a moose might be munching on new growth or crossing a clear-cut 200 yards wide by a kilometer long, with no chance for getting closer, and little time for another plan. In a few minutes your only chance would vanish. And, it very well might be the only moose you would see in a week's time of hard hunting. That's on a do-it-yourself hunt without a guide or outfitter, but with a buddy who may be off in another area.

You shoot or let walk away. In reality, however, it's no greater challenge than shooting a good buck whitetail at 250 yards. That's why I always tote a rifle-cartridge combo capable of knocking down a moose at up to 500 yards at least. And for me, that's not a .270. Yes, it's been done with a .270, but at that range there have been failures, many of them, with anything less than 300 magnums. Personally, I prefer one of the mediums for those circumstances.

And yes, there are those who poke around lakes and woodlots with lesser cartridges, who choose to hunt moose at 25 to 200 yards, but for those who travel 1000 miles over land to get there for a possible 25% success rate (normal rate of success for resident hunters), most have learned that a .338 Win Mag is far better than a .270 when the range stretches beyond 250 yards. And, an average mature bull moose in Ontario goes 1200 lbs. Some have been taken at 1400 lbs. Not all go into the record books because that isn't the goal of most of Ontario's 100,000 resident moose hunters.

Yet, probably the most common "moose cartridge" for local moose hunters, who already have done their pre-season scouting in mixed forest, where shots will rarely ever exceed 100 yards, is the .308 Winchester in areas where I typically do my deer hunting on Crown Land.

IF you can get close enough, you can bring down a 1200 lb moose with a .22LR by "braining" it from a side shot!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I've seen several cases blown in Remington model 700's. The primer pockets were about double size; the cases had formed a belt. All rifles had to be opened by gunsmiths, the head space checked, found to be in spec, extractors replaced, then shot normally. All were with handloads. Recently I saw a stainless Tikka T3 .308 shot with "pistol" powder. A piece of the front receiver ring disappeared. The bolt would not open; the barrel looked OK. The plastic stock was split up the middle of the forearm. Considering the pressures involved I would gladly shoot any Tikka in good condition with my handloads or factory ammo.