Firearms – Page 3 – Wholesale Hunter

OPTICS: POWER AND LIGHT!

Craig Boddington

The December afternoon was unseasonably warm. Deer would come out late, so I wasn’t surprised that sunset came and went on an empty clearing. Five minutes later the first doe stepped out. No problem, plenty of time…and light. Ten more minutes, flash of antler in the trees. I was hoping for a “management” buck; this buck was a tall seven-pointer, reasonable mass, missing a tine on one side.

Larger, more powerful scopes have nothing to do with a rifle’s accuracy…but make shooting good groups a lot easier. This is the new Leica 2.5-15x50mm Amplus, a great scope with capability and versatility. Boddington put it on his old .264 Winchester Magnum to try out some new handloads…with awesome results.

First impression: Probably what the doctor ordered. I got the rifle rested, but I wanted to see the check his age, make sure he wasn’t a precocious youngster. He was slow coming out, but there was still plenty of time.

This clearing looks west; the sun had dropped behind trees, so the deer were in black shadow and the light was going fast. Another buck trailed the first, almost identical antlers, maybe a bit smaller…or a year younger? I checked my watch, five minutes shooting time remaining, but as they fed along, I could no longer tell them apart. I was done!

: Boddington’s ’21 Georgia buck was taken with a buddy’s rifle topped with a big 2.515x50mm Swarovski scope. — Boddington’s ’21 Georgia buck was taken with a buddy’s rifle topped with a big 2.515x50mm Swarovski scope. During the close encounter with this buck, he inadvertently turned the scope power up too much, saw nothing but hair, and had to quickly turn it back down.

Half-hour past sundown defines legal shooting hours in much of North America. Depending on cover and clouds, usually we can see fairly well that late. But not always. First and last light are magic times when clear, bright optics are essential. On that evening, with two days of Kansas rifle season left, I was under-scoped!

I was carrying Uberti’s “Courteney.” Single-shot on John Browning’s 1885 action, configured like a British stalking rifle, chambered in .303 British, and named after Frederick Courteney Selous, who loved single-shots. So do I! Plenty of gun in our woods, where most shots are close. The Courteney has exceptional open sights, plus a non-traditional integral Weaver base, simplifying scope mounting.

Boddington put a very small 1.5-4x20mm scope on the Courteney single shot. His choice was largely because it “looked good on the rifle,” but for whitetails he could have used more magnification and needed more brightness. It got the job done, but not before last-light opportunities were passed.

In our thick timber, the light comes late and leaves early anyway, but these days I lose the light sooner than in years gone by. I have certain stands I’ll hunt with iron sights, but it’s risky. Best mount a scope! So, in keeping with the rifle’s trim profile, I went minimalist, mounting a little Leupold Mark AR 1.5-4x20mm. Looked great on the rifle!

These three one-inch scopes differ widely in capabilities…and also in size and bulk. Top, 1.4-4x20mm; center, 3-9x40mm; bottom, 3-15x44mm. All are useful, but it depends on how far you need to shoot…and the likelihood of a tough shot in poor light.

For most purposes, I’m not crazy about the big, heavy scopes so much in vogue today. In most situations I don’t need high magnification or the brightness of a big, clunky objective. Especially with whitetails, we mustn’t underestimate the importance of those first and last minutes of shooting light…but that’s exactly what I’d done. Those deer were in the open, max 125 yards, but I had neither enough power, nor enough light, to make either positive ID or take the shot.

4X was plenty of magnification for that shot (and much farther). When I started hunting (mid-Sixties), variable-power scopes weren’t perfected. Fixed 4X was the most common hunting scope, and many hunters did fine with fixed 2.5X scopes.

Europeans don’t observe “shooting hours” as we know them. It was pretty dark when I shot this roebuck in Hungary. The rifle is an Austrian single-shot in 7mm STW, topped with a big Swarovski scope with 56mm objective lens, pretty standard for serious European hunters.

I hunted happily with fixed 4X scopes through the late Seventies and didn’t know I needed more magnification. By then, reliable variables were taking over. The huge target image of my first 3-9X was amazing. I liked it! Since then, I’ve done most of my hunting with “medium-power” variables in the 2-7X, 3-9X, and 3.5-10X class. I shoot left-handed and am strongly left-eye dominant; I have no problem keeping both eyes open. At these magnification levels, most of my shots at game, even fairly close, have been with my scopes turned up to maximum power.

Like whitetails, hogs—especially big boars—are often taken in poor light. Greg Tinsley shot this fine California boar at daylight, still so dark they had to wait. His Lazzeroni rifle was topped with a big, bright scope, so he was ready to shoot the minute it got light enough.

As I was trying to age those bucks in poor light, I could have used more magnification…and more light! My 10×42 binocular gave me both but required too much movement!

The 1.5-4x20mm scope I used, one-inch tube with straight-tube 20mm objective, is one of the smallest and lightest of all scopes. Today’s typical “dangerous game” scope, maybe 1-6x24mm on 30mm tube, is also compact. Small and light scopes are seductive! The 30mm tube admits more light than a one-inch tube so, if quality is similar, will the brighter. However, a scope with a straight objective cannot be as bright as a scope of similar quality with a larger objective lens. In other words, in that 1.5-4x20mm scope, I was using about the “least bright” scope possible!

More magnification might make shots simpler, but in our area we have no stands that a 4X scope can’t handle. Being an optimist, and not looking for a big buck, I hadn’t anticipated a last-light shot, where I’d wish for just two more minutes of good visibility!

There is no “industry standard” for what constitutes an image size at 4X, 10X, or any other “X.” Brands vary, as do fields of view as magnification goes up and down. Brightness and optical clarity also vary, but these are more quality and pricing issues. With my first 3-9X scope, “three-times-zoom” was standard…and the limit of technology. Four-times-zoom isn’t new but today we have scopes with five, six, and even eight-times zoom.

This is good, because today’s bigger variable can still have a low setting that will keep you out of trouble if you follow a wounded animal into thick stuff. Depending on your ability to use a riflescope with both eyes open, the low setting on a hunting scope should probably be 2X or 3X, maximum 4X. With five, six, or eight times zoom, this puts the upper setting into the stratosphere, magnification once reserved for varmint and long-range target scopes.

I enjoying ringing steel at long range, but I’m not especially interested in the extreme-range shooting popular today, and I’m not going to shoot at game at a half-mile. If extreme range fascinates you, then you might need magnification into the high 20s and beyond. Thing is: With magnification, it’s not true that “if a little is good, a lot is better.” As magnification goes up, field of view goes down; at the highest magnification, there’s increasing difficulty finding a distant target.

If a scope is turned up too high, at close range you run the risk of seeing a blur of hair through the scope. I’ve never gotten in trouble with scopes up to 10X or so—but I try to remember to keep them turned down until I need more magnification. Just this year in Georgia, I was using my buddy’s rifle with a Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x50mm scope. Walking to my stand, I got caught flat-footed by a good buck chasing a doe. I dropped my pack and lay behind it, turning up the scope as I got into position. Guess I cranked it too far; when I got behind the rifle all I could see was brown. I cranked it back down and made the shot.

1978 Nevada mule deer — Boddington took this fine mule deer in Nevada in 1978, using a Ruger M77 .30-06 topped with the first variable scope he ever owned, a Redfield 3-9X. After years of hunting with fixed 4X scopes the 9X magnification literally opened his eyes

For my purposes, a variable with maximum power somewhere in the teens is all I need, even for shooting prairie dogs. The most powerful scope I own is an older 6-24X. I use it for varmints, awesome, but at higher settings the field of view is too narrow for big game. For open-country hunting, in recent years I’ve used 2-12X, 3-15X, 4-16X, and currently have VX6 3-18X on multiple flat-shooting rifles. All of these have (at least) all the magnification I want. Because of mirage and heat waves, there are many situations where magnification much above about 12X isn’t practical and, on big game, a 12X image is big enough at any distance I’m likely to shoot.

European hunters rarely use artificial lights but, with big scopes, they use moonlight and, when possible, snow background to hunt far into the night. This Austrian stag was taken late the night before and recovered at daylight.

As with magnification, current taste in objectives is also getting bigger. Other than weight, bulk, and cost, there’s no disadvantage to bigger objectives, and we usually accept what the manufacturer offers in the scope we want. I have scopes with big objectives, visibly bright. However, I prefer the trimmer profile of a 40mm, 42mm, or 44mm objective. Remember, as an American hunter, I’m generally held to “half-hour before sunrise to half-hour after sunset.” Some feral hog and varmint hunting is legal at night, but I don’t do much of that.

Donna Boddington and Zack Aultman with a nice Georgia buck, taken 20 minutes after sunset the night before. She used her .270 with 3-9x40mm scope. Such a scope is neither powerful nor especially bright, but powerful and bright enough for most North American hunting.

Europeans have a different situation. They rarely use artificial lights, but “shooting hours” are generally unknown. Over there, I’ve hunted deer and boar when, well, it was black dark and needed all the light a scope can possibly gather! Most of the places I hunt, I’m gonna quit 30 minutes after sunset. I don’t need the brightest—or most powerful—scope I can buy…but I sure needed more than I had!

The next night, about the same time, but in an east-facing meadow, much brighter at quitting time, I shot a tall 3.5-year-old forky with no eyeguards, perfect buck for me. I like the Courteney single shot and intend to do more hunting with it. So, as soon as I got home I replaced that 1.5-4x20mm scope with a Trijicon 3-9x40mm scope. Doesn’t look quite as perfect on the rifle, but I don’t want to run short of power and light again!

RIFLESCOPES: IS BIGGER ALWAYS BETTER?

Craig Boddington

The “standard” American riflescope has been based on a one-inch tube diameter (26mm) for most of my life. European scopes were more likely to be based on the larger-diameter 30mm tube, but until maybe the 1990s 30mm tubes were fairly uncommon in North America…and scope rings in that diameter were limited and hard to find.

Blaser optic — Blaser-two scopes: Boddington’s Blaser set up with two scopes. Bottom, a Zeiss 3.5-10x56mm. With the extra-large objective, a good example of a scope designed to maximize the poor light shooting European hunters are accustomed to. Top, a Leupold VX6 2-12x42mm, a very capable scope, but with a more modest objective lens.

I don’t think it’s yet true that 30mm scopes are more popular than one-inch tubes but, for sure, 30mm scopes are widely accepted, and there’s little difficulty finding mounts and rings. The current trend is toward larger and more powerful riflescopes. 30mm is not the limit; scopes with 34mm tubes have been available in Europe for many years, and are becoming more common over here.

Boddington’s Jarrett .300 Win Mag accounted for this Dall ram in Alaska. Mounted with a Leupold VX6 3-18x44mm scope, the rifle weighs 8.5 pounds. For Boddington, that’s a comfortable weight, and an objective lens of this size can still be mounted low on the receiver.

Comparing and judging riflescopes is difficult. Regardless of diameter, the tube is just that: A metal tube, housing the internal mechanisms, with ocular and objective lenses affixed at each end (and usually housed in their own tubes, which we call “bells”). Sound construction is essential, but it’s always the quality of lenses and coatings that determine clarity of image. With riflescopes, the only real comparisons that can be made are “apples to apples.” Construction and quality of lenses and coatings must be more or less equal, otherwise you’re comparing apples to oranges!

Leupold’s 1.75-5x20mm scope is probably the quintessential “dangerous game” scope. It serves its purpose but, even in high-quality scopes, the straight tube with small objective lens cannot be as bright as a scope of similar power with a larger objective.

Quality of lenses and coatings are also important in “brightness,” which is of critical importance to all hunters. Good glass with the most modern coatings admits more useable light into the scope tube. However, if these are similar, the diameter of the objective lens is the primary contributor to brightness. So, regardless of tube diameter, a “dangerous game” or “tactical” scope with a straight tube forward and a 24mm objective lens cannot be as bright as the same scope with a forward bell housing a larger diameter objective lens. Somewhere in the gun safes or shop I have riflescopes with 20, 24, 28, 33, 36, 40, 42, 44, 50, and 56mm objective lenses.

: A gorgeous desert bighorn, taken with Donna Boddington’s MGA .270 with Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm scope. With a short stock and 22-inch barrel, the rifle is short, light, easy to carry, and has all the capability needed for the shots she is likely to take.

If all else is equal, bigger is usually brighter. I am told that there is a point of diminishing return; as in water down a hose, a scope tube can accept only so much light, so there’s no point in putting a huge 56mm objective on a one-inch-tube scope. There have been one-inch scopes with extra-large objectives, to me ungainly in appearance. Today, with most manufacturers also offering 30mm tubes, most one-inch-tube scopes have retreated to objectives of 50mm and less, resulting in a package that appears more balanced, plus doesn’t need to be mounted as high.

So, is the bigger tube “better”? In some ways, yes. The larger tube is not necessarily “brighter.” Again, this depends mostly on quality of glass, lens coatings, and size of objective. However, the water hose analogy holds: A larger tube admits more useable light. From a mechanical standpoint, the larger tube allows a greater range of adjustment. This doesn’t mean that all scopes with larger tubes are engineered to take advantage of this, but most top-quality scopes are. With today’s interest in extreme-range shooting, this is important: If you’re dialing elevation on your turret, you’re essentially done when you run out of adjustment!

The bigger the scope (and larger the objective lens), the higher the scope must be mounted for a good cheek weld on the comb. This Savage with fully adjustable “AccuStock” solves that problem with height of comb easily adjusted.

Not everyone, perhaps not even many of us, need or care about multiple revolutions of scope adjustment. I don’t, but here’s a strong argument for the 30mm tube: It’s here, and here to stay. The majority of new scope developments have gone to 30mm tubes. So, the best glass, the newest coatings, more adjustment, and all the bells and whistles, are most likely to be found on 30mm scopes.

So, if 30mm tubes are good, then 34mm scopes must be even better, right? Yes and no! The ability to utilize more light and the increased range of adjustment also apply. Many serious extreme-range shooters have gone to 34mm scopes. For many years variable scopes were stuck on “about” three times zoom, as in the popular 3-9X. Today variable scopes are available with six and even eight times zoom. There is advantage in the tactical arena: A 1-8X scope (eight times zoom) allows a true 1X (no magnification for close quarters, all the out to 8X for longer ranges. However, 34mm scopes are not yet common.

3 Scopes — Top to bottom: Riton 1-8x28mm, 34mm tube. Center, Leupold VX6 2-12x42mm, 30mm tube; Leupold VXR 2-7x33mm, one-inch tube. These scopes vary in magnification and size of objective lens, but scopes with larger tubes will be heavier and bulkier.

I tried one two years ago and had a terrible time finding mounts and rings for the rifles I wanted to try it on! With pandemic shortages and shipping backlogs, I doubt this has gotten better…but it surely will in time!

All that aside, I will always make two arguments against larger tubes and larger scopes. First is weight: The larger tube is heavier! Add in a larger objective lens and a big objective bell to house it, and you have more weight. The 34mm scope mentioned above happens to a Riton 1-8x28mm with straight forward objective. Designed as a tactical scope, with eight-times-zoom capability, I figured it would be an awesome scope for a .375, and it is. One of few mounting systems I could find in 34mm was a Blaser saddle mount. The scope we’ve been using on our Blaser .375 barrel is a Leupold VXR 2-7×33 with 30mm tube and a modest objective bell.

A heavy-bossed buffalo taken with a Sabatti .450/.400 double topped with a Leupold VXR 1-4x20mm scope. For the purpose, this was all the magnification needed, but a straight-tube scope with small objective is always limited in brightness.

I weighed the two scopes. Including the steel Blaser mount, which is heavier than some, the 1-8x28mm scope with 34mm tube weighed just over two pounds. Also with Blaser mount attached, the 2-7×33 with 30mm tube weighed exactly half as much, just over a pound. Flip a coin: 1-8X magnification versus 2-7X for a full pound of extra gun weight?

The second primary argument against thicker tubes and larger objective lenses is bulk. For a foot hunter (and, for that matter, a foot soldier), the larger the scope, the more there is to catch on things and snag in brush. For all of us, the larger the objective lens, the higher the scope must be mounted to clear the barrel. Many modern rifles with adjustable cheek rests address this problem, but not all of us have them (or want them).

This vintage .270 is topped with an (equally vintage) Leupold 2-7X. The rifle shoots well enough to deserve a bigger scope. However, the stock fit is perfect with a small scope mounted low…and the rifle is just too pretty to mess up!

Ultimately, it depends on what you want to do. Larger-diameter scopes and large objective lenses were developed in Europe, where “shooting hours” as we American hunters know them are uncommon. Rarely do they use artificial lights or thermal imaging, but in Europe the hunt often continues far into the night, long after we’re back in camp enjoying a fire. They use moonlight (against snow when possible), and they need the brightest scopes available.

Like millions of other whitetail hunters, I understand the importance of those first and last minutes of daylight. For sure, I appreciate a clear, bright scope! However, I watch the clock: I won’t shoot until 30 minutes before sunrise, and I’m done at 30 minutes after sunset. For my deer hunting, I find a high-quality scope, whether one-inch or 30mm tube, with a medium-size objective, say 36 to 44mm, to be bright enough.

Although 30mm scopes are “in” today, many manufacturers still offer both one-inch and 30mm tube scopes, in a variety of magnifications and objective lenses. Top to bottom, three of the excellent Vector “Continental” scopes: 3-18x50mm, one-inch tube; 2-12x50mm, 30mm tube; 1-6x24mm, 30mm tube with straight forward tube.

For many, hog hunting has changed the game. Much of mine is done in California, where we don’t hunt at night. Across Texas and the Deep South, shooting hours usually don’t apply to feral hogs! Now you’re playing by European rules. Absent lights and thermals, you need the brightest scopes possible, large tubes and big objective lenses!

I have long since accepted 30mm tubes for much of my hunting, primarily because of their availability in high-quality scopes, with features I like, such as dial-up turrets and lighted reticles. However, they are heavier, bulkier…and costlier. Fine if you actually need the capability. Also fine if you just want it.

Right Riton 1-8x28mm with 34mm tube (photo 3087). Left, Leupold VXR 2-7x33mm with 30mm tubeFor hunting purposes, the capabilities of these two scopes are similar…but the scope with the 34mm tube weighs twice as much.

It’s not something we can do all the time, but we do a fair amount of mountain hunting. Although I try to keep the weight down a bit, today I use 30mm scopes on my mountain rifles. My Jarrett .300 Win Mag wears a Leupold VX6 3-18x44mm scope with 30mm tube, not a giant scope at all, but plenty of capability. The rifle weighs 8 ½ pounds with scope, no lightweight, but weight I’m comfortable carrying. With calibrated CDS turret I can ring steel out to 1000 yards with no problem. This gives me plenty of confidence and capability for shots I might actually take at game, which is about half that distance.

On the bench with a 26 Nosler topped with a Huskemaw 3-12LR, 30mm tube, set up with dial-up turrets for long-range work. Moderate in magnification with a modest objective lens, a good compromise between size, weight, and capability.

In recent years, Donna has taken more sheep and goats than I have (partly because it’s sort of her turn). Her go-to mountain rifle is a lot different from mine. She’s several inches shorter and a third lighter. She has no business carrying as heavy a rifle, and a long rifle bangs against her legs in steep country. Also, she won’t take shots quite as far as I might. Her go-to mountain rifle is an MGA .270 with Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm with one-inch tube. The light scope contributes to overall weight of less than six pounds. Realistically, the scope has enough magnification, and is plenty bright enough, for just about any of the hunting we actually do.

You may need (or want) much more scope: Higher magnification, the largest scope tube you can get, the biggest objective lens. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re probably going to pay more. And you’re going to have to carry it up the mountains and drag it through the brush.

STUNG BY A HORNET

Craig Boddington

The rimfire .22 Long Rifle is essential. With lack of recoil, low report, and cheap ammo, there’s really nothing better for small game, plinking, and practice. For serious riflemen, a fast “varmint cartridge” between .17 and .22 caliber is almost as irreplaceable.

Depending on preferences, it might be a .204 Ruger, .223 Remington, .22-250, or one of a dozen others. This rifle will be used for small varmints and coyotes in more open country. Not to be ignored, it will also be used to shoot for accuracy, and to improve one’s shooting. Because: Cartridges in this group are capable of extreme accuracy and are easy to shoot.

At their ranch in Namibia, Barry Burchell and son Frederick whip up some .22 Hornet loads so hunter Harley Young can borrow their Anschutz .22 Hornet to hunt pygmy antelopes.

Not all of us want a bunch of rifles chambered to different cartridges, and certainly needs differ. Even so, there’s a place and purpose for a cartridge that splits the difference between the .22 Long Rifle and the fastest varmint rounds. Such a cartridge has more range and power than a .22, but is capable of handling somewhat larger game…yet without undue destruction on small game. There aren’t a lot of options in this niche, but the two most obvious are the .17 HMR and its parent cartridge, the .22 WMR (aka .22 Magnum), both great cartridges.

Ammunition is costlier than .22 Long Rifle, but cheaper than centerfires. Of the two, the .17 is faster and tends to be more accurate. However, the .17 HMR is marginal for coyotes, so its utility is limited. The .22 Magnum isn’t as fast, but is adequate for close-range coyotes.

A nice oribi, taken with the CZ527 .22 Hornet. The oribi is an open-country antelope so, by both size and average shooting distance, approaches the upper end of proper use for the .22 Hornet.

Centerfire choices between the rimfires and fast varmint cartridges are also limited. Certainly, we could include the .17 Hornet and .17 Fireball, but the .17’s bullet is too light for game much larger than a fox. So, in order to get more bullet, we have to look at a couple of old cartridges: .22 Hornet and .218 Bee. Power levels are almost identical; the .218 Bee uses a 46-grain bullet at 2760 fps. The Hornet’s traditional load is a 45-grain bullet at 2690 fps, with modern loads a bit faster.

For handloaders, there’s little to choose between. However, I think the Hornet is the better choice, because of greater availability in rifles and loads. The .218 Bee was introduced in 1938 in Winchester’s Model 65 lever-action, attempting to breathe new life into the old 1892 action. Winchester still loads .218 Bee, but factory ammunition uses blunt-nosed bullets because of the M65’s tubular magazine. A few bolt-actions and single-shots have been chambered to .218 Bee, but it offers no meaningful advantage over the Hornet, and is less popular.

It’s a tough call when you want to take small game or “small big game” cleanly without doing undue damage. A shotgun is often a good choice; with rifle cartridges it’s more complex. On right from top: .17 HMR, .22 WMR, .22 Hornet, .222 Remington, .223 Remington.

The .22 Hornet is a different story! Although its popularity comes and goes, it’s a standard cartridge, consistently loaded by multiple sources, with a variety of bullet weights. Development is credited to Townsend Whelen and G.L. Wotkyns, with the case similar to the blackpowder .22 Winchester Center Fire (WCF). Introduced by Winchester in 1930, the .22 Hornet was the first centerfire varmint cartridge developed for smokeless powder…and it’s still a good one!

35-grain loads are now available that reach 3000 fps. Even so, the .22 Hornet isn’t impressive compared with the many faster .22 centerfires. On the other hand, it offers amazing performance from such a small case, with minimal recoil and good accuracy.

This is the CZ M527 .22 Hornet Boddington took to Mozambique in 2018. A light, slick little rifle, it shot particularly well with Nosler 35-grain Varmageddon loads. In Africa, that load accounted for a half-dozen animals, all one-shot kills, all with the bullet lodged under the hide on the far side.

On varmints such as prairie dogs, woodchucks, and marmots, the Hornet is plenty of gun, and shoots flat enough at least to a couple hundred yards. Coyotes are tough, but it’s powerful enough, with more range than can be wrung out of a .22 Magnum.

And, it has some specialized uses. Purist turkey hunters gnash their teeth and rend their garments over this but, after all, it is legal to use rifles on turkeys in several states. Doesn’t matter to me whether you approve or choose to participate. For those who do, the .22 Hornet is the perfect “turkey rifle.” Accurate enough for head shots, but powerful enough to anchor even the biggest gobbler with a well-placed body shot…without damaging much meat. My Dad was not a serious rifle guy and owned few. One was an early Oregon Kimber .22 Hornet. He loved to shoot prairie dogs with it. We still have it and, yes, Dad hunted turkeys with it. So have I!

Small varmint — Left to right: .17 HMR, .22 Long Rifle, .22 WMR, .22 Hornet. The .22 Long Rifle is irreplaceable for small game. For somewhat larger game and more range the .17 HMR and .22 Magnum are extremely effective but, above small game and below long-range varminting, Boddington believes the .22 Hornet is a solid choice.

The .22 Hornet is legal for deer in some states (usually under an “any centerfire cartridge” rule). Generally speaking, I think this is a bad idea but, with perfect shot placement, I’ve seen the Hornet take grownup whitetails very cleanly. More appropriate, and an ideal niche for this great little cartridge, is the often-oddball class of what I think of as “small big game.” In North America we were cheated in this category, with few options. The Hornet is ideal for thin-skinned animals such as lynx and bobcat, so is a fine tool for trappers and houndsmen. And it’s perfect for javelina. Usually not difficult to locate or stalk, the javelina is a uniquely American animal and makes an awesome mount. Weighing maybe 50 pounds, I can’t imagine a more perfect javelina rifle than a .22 Hornet.

The several varieties of jackrabbit-sized dik diks are among the smallest African antelopes. Their skin is paper thin and bones fragile; bullet damage is a serious concern. Harley Young used a .22 Hornet to take this excellent Damara dik dik, perfect cartridge and perfect shot.

Elsewhere, the utility expands. Africa has a full suite of small predators, and is blessed with a wide variety of pygmy antelopes. In deep forest a shotgun is the preferred tool, but in more open terrain a scoped rifle is almost essential. These animals are thin-skinned, and the standard plains game rifle does too much damage. My long-time boss “Pete” Petersen loved his .22 Hornets. He used them widely at home for varmints (and sometimes deer), but he always took a .22 Hornet to Africa…not only for the tiny antelopes and small predators, but for camp meat up to impala and reedbuck. I haven’t always taken a Hornet to Africa, but I’ve often borrowed a page from Pete and taken a Hornet, especially when a “special” pygmy antelope was on the menu.

Several times I took a Hornet barrel for a Thompson/Center Contender (perfect). Other times I’ve borrowed Hornets from outfitters. Although still fairly popular over here, .22 Hornets are common in southern Africa, simply because they’re so useful. A couple of years ago in Namibia, my friend Harley Young wanted to take a Damara dik dik and a klipspringer to complete his “Tiny Ten.” Outfitter Barry Burchell had a nice Anschutz .22 Hornet…but little ammo. No problem, we spent a couple hours at his loading bench, whipped some up, and after checking zero Harley made two brilliant shots.

Coastal Mozambique is blessed with several uncommon pygmy antelopes: Suni, red duiker, and blue duiker in patches of thick forest; and lots of oribis in the open pans. In the thick stuff we usually use a camp shotgun, but I thought a Hornet might be better. With a rifle in close cover, you must find a hole to thread the bullet through, but with a low-power scope you often can.

A spectacular Livingstone’s suni, taken in Mozambique with the CZ527 in .22 Hornet. The shot was through a little gap at about 60 yards, perfect performance with Nosler’s 35-grain bullet.

In 2018 I took a little CZ 527 in .22 Hornet with a little Leupold 1-4X scope. I would have preferred the traditional 45-grain bullet, but that particular rifle grouped best with Nosler Varmageddon with a light, fast 35-grain bullet. It was magic! Finding a clear path to shoot through proved easier with the scoped rifle than with a shotgun, and performance was perfect. Even on suni and the tiny blue duiker, the little 35-grain bullet opened nicely and was consistently lodged against the hide on the far side, dramatic effect with almost no damage. In just a few days I took excellent suni and both blue and red duiker in the forest. The same load accounted for oribi and reedbuck in the open, but I kept the shots within 100 yards.

Daughter Brittany has been keeping her grandfather’s Kimber .22 Hornet, but we took it out of mothballs this spring in the Texas Hill Country. I had every intention of shooting a javelina with it, but I couldn’t bring myself to; I couldn’t figure out what I might do with it! Wild hogs are another story; we were on Tom Hammond’s Record Buck Ranch, a place with a major pig problem. The challenge: The .22 Hornet isn’t really enough gun for hogs…you gotta be careful.

Houston Erskine and I stalked a deer feeder one morning and caught a couple of hogs. The ugliest spotted hog I ever saw was going at it eagerly, not a large pig but too big for a .22 Hornet…unless you’re careful. I got Dad’s Hornet on sticks at about 70 yards, and found the base of the ear in the crosshairs. At the shot the hog went over backwards and never moved. That’s being stung by a Hornet, what a wonderful little cartridge!

THE PERFECT ZERO?

Craig Boddington

Previously, this column discussed the process of “sighting in.” If you’re happy, then we’re done; it’s time to head for the deer stand! We’re going to assume we have enough accuracy to reliably hit a deer’s vital zone at whatever distance we might shoot. The vital zone of even a small deer offers about an eight-inch target, so extreme accuracy isn’t essential for much for field shooting.

Jarrett-300groups — Boddington’s Jarrett wears a Leupold scope with a CDS turret, calling for a 200-yard zero. The left-hand group was shot at 200 yards, ensuring a good starting point for dialing with a 180-grain SST load.

Hey, I love tiny groups because they instill confidence, and I love to ring steel at long range. However, I’m unlikely to shoot at a game animal much past 400 yards. Most of my shots at game are much closer, and many of us rarely need to reach past 200 yards. Theoretically, if your rifle is producing one-inch groups at 100 yards (one Minute of Angle or “MOA”), then it should produce two-inch groups at 200 yards, four-inch groups at 400 yards, and so on. Considering the size of the vital zone, one MOA is more accuracy than essential.

: Some of Boddington’s rifles wear iron sights…and a few have worn barrels. Either way, extreme accuracy isn’t possible…and unnecessary for a lot of field shooting. With excellent paper-plate accuracy at 50 yards, this old .300 Savage would be just fine to 150 yards…if Boddington could see the front sight well enough!

Actual groups usually get larger as distance increases, so I don’t mind having more accuracy than I really need, but let’s be reasonable and practical. Even today, with the best rifles, optics, and ammo ever, not all rifles can produce one MOA accuracy.

Tight groups instill great confidence, but sub-MOA groups aren’t essential for most field shooting. This Savage 100 .30-06 is more than field-ready: The excellent right-hand group is two inches high at l00 yards; the bullet will be “on” at about 200 yards

Not a train smash; 1.5 MOA is plenty for most field shooting. Most modern rifles will do at least this well, and that’s “good enough,” at least at normal field ranges. I have older rifles that are “two MOA” rifles. Also not a problem. I hunt with them, but only in close-range situations! With such rifles, I usually do my zeroing on ten-inch paper plates. In that context, “paperplate accuracy” is good enough! Regardless of the accuracy you have to work with, and the ranges you might consider shooting, you still must decide exactly where to leave your rifle zeroed before you head afield.

TRAJECTORY CURVE

Traditionally, most of us leave a rifle zeroed slightly high at 100 yards, to take advantage of the bullet’s trajectory. Here’s how this works: There are two straight lines, line of bore and, slightly above, line of sight. Both are straight, but the path of the projectile is curved. Gravity starts working on any projectile as it leaves the muzzle, and air resistance slows it down. As distance increases, the projectile falls ever more quickly, eventually striking the ground.

: Gordon Marsh of LG Outdoors — Gordon Marsh of LG Outdoors at his bench, checking handload velocities with a Lab Radar, a wonderfully accurate tool that uses Doppler radar to measure bullet speed.

If line of bore and line of sight remain parallel, the bullet will never cross the line of sight and no zero can be achieved. Using sight adjustments, we actually zero so the line of bore and line of sight slightly converge. Line of bore remains straight, while the projectile’s path is curved. With line of bore tilted slightly upward relative to line of sight, the projectile’s curving path crosses line of sight twice, once at short range and again farther out. In between these points the projectile’s path will be above the line of sight. The point at which this distance above line of sight is greatest is referred to as “mid-range trajectory.”

On the bench with a Springfield Waypoint in 6.5mm PRC. The scope is a Zeiss 2-12X; the big 56mm objective requires the scope (line of sight) to be considerably higher than line of bore. Height of the scope is a critical factor in good ballistics data and must be correct.

The steepness of the trajectory curve depends on velocity and projectile aerodynamics. In establishing final zero, we usually try to use that curve to best advantage, extending the ranges at which we can shoot without having to worry about holding off the target (above or below) to compensate for that curving trajectory.

There should be little mystery about the actual trajectory curve. For generations, printed ballistics charts have yielded this information, usually suggesting various sight-ins at 100 yards (the bullet’s first crossing of line of sight), and telling us greatest height of trajectory, and where the dropping projectile crosses line of sight again, and yielding bullet drop at various ranges as the decline accelerates.

On the bench with a Jarrett rifle in .300 Win. Mag. Boddington’s California range is hot in summer, cool in winter, and always near sea level. When figuring ballistics data for open-country hunts, he estimates expected temperature and elevation. This works fine for the ranges he shoots at game, but guesswork isn’t good enough for extreme-range shooting.

Today, ballistics programs and smartphone apps yield the same information, and allow us to input altitude, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and more, all of which increase in importance as range increases. Printed data assumes a standard measurement of line of sight over line of bore (height of scope). Electronic data allows us to input this. With the larger (higher-mounted) scopes in vogue today, that measurement must be accurate.

PH Poen van Zyl and Texan John Stucker at the bench in Mozambique, checking zero on Stucker’s .375. With a crocodile hunt in the offing, we adjusted our zeros very carefully to be exactly dead-on at 50 yards.

All data, whether printed or electronic, assumes that the starting velocity is correct. Barrels vary in length, and there are “fast” barrels and “slow” barrels. For truly accurate data, it’s essential to use a chronograph to check the speed of your load in your rifle.

Boddington was delighted to take this ancient and gnarly spike on his Kansas farm. The rifle is a Mossberg 464 with AimPoint red-dot sight. The rifle was zeroed at 50 yards, the shot about the same distance

Fortunately, the vital zone of a big-game animal remains a large target! None of this stuff matters much if your goal is to shoot your buck from a favorite treestand, like in thick timber at my Kansas farm. When I’m setting up a rifle for an open-country hunt, you bet I measure height of scope and check velocity! Effects of altitude and climatic factors are less critical…until you get past normal shooting distance, or you have extreme variations. In preparation for fall hunts, I do my summer shooting in hot, low country. I make a guess on anticipated altitude and climatic factors, run the data, and zero accordingly. This has proven adequate for the ranges I shoot at game…but isn’t precise enough for extreme-range work!

DEAD-ON OR SLIGHTLY HIGH?

Whether at 25, 50, or 100 yards, a dead-on zero with a modern rifle cartridge is the first time the bullet crosses the line of sight. Farther on, it will be above the line of sight and, as the curve steepens, it will cross line of sight again somewhere downrange.

It is not true that “dead-on at 25 yards” will be close to “on” at 100 yards. This is possible with slower cartridges, and with iron sights or low-mounted scopes. With faster cartridges and higher-mounted scopes, I’ve found that a 25-yard zero will usually strike too high at 100 yards. A 50-yard zero comes closer, especially with low-mounted sights. I often zero iron-sighted rifles and scoped big-bores at 50 yards and call it done, knowing that I’m unlikely to use such rifles much past 100 yards. However, with today’s big scopes, I find that a 50-yard zero is usually three or four inches high at 100 yards. This puts the second crossing of the line of sight ‘way out there, and creates a mid-range trajectory as much as six inches above line of sight. For me, this increases risk of shooting over an animal (or hitting too high).

John Stucker and Boddington with Boddington’s Mozambique croc, taken in September 2021 with a Blaser .375 H&H. The Nile crocodile must be taken with either a brain or spine shot. All rifles were zeroed dead-on at 50 yards; Boddington’s four-hunter group took four big crocs…anchored with one shot each.

For close-range work, there’s nothing wrong with a 100-yard zero. Depending on cartridge, “dead-on at 100” will be on again at 150 to 175 yards, with little mid-range-rise. More common is to zero a “couple of inches high” at 100 yards. You can study ballistics charts and programs, and you should. Depending on your cartridge (and load, and bullet), a zero of two to 2.5 inches high at 100 yards will put you dead-on somewhere between 200 and 300 yards. You shouldn’t have to hold low at closer range, and you shouldn’t have to hold over until nearly 250 yards. In my youth, Jack O’Connor was our greatest gunwriter. His consistent advice was to zero “two to 2.5 inches high” at 100 yards. I believe his formula remains sound, and that’s the way I usually zero for general-purpose use. Most important to me: I never establish a 100-yard zero any higher than that, because of the risk of shooting over at “medium” range!

DIALING THE RANGE

These days, dial-up turrets are all the rage, and they change the game. Some systems require either a 100 or 200-yard zero as the starting point. If you intend to dial the range, then I assume you may be shooting at some distance. I don’t like a 100-yard zero in open country, simply because you must start holding over (or dialing) at fairly close range. With today’s optics, dialing is precise, but fraught with human error: You must dial correctly and, if you don’t shoot, you must remember to dial back to zero. (Trust me, everybody forgets now and then!)

Leupold CDS — With a good scope, dialing the range or holdover is the most precise method, but the data must be correct and verified by shooting at actual distance. This CDS turret is for a .300 Weatherby Magnum load at a measured 3185 fps with 180-grain SST. The 6000 feet elevation and 30-degree F temperature reflect anticipated hunting conditions.

I’ve used several systems with good results, but a favorite is Leupold’s Custom Dial System (CDS), with turret calibrated to my load at a stated altitude and temperature. On these, again, I strike an average of most likely conditions. My CDS is based on a 200-yard zero. At 250 yards I’ll usually hold slightly high on the shoulder, keeping it simple and taking advantage of that large vital zone. I normally don’t consider dialing until about 300 yards.

If your system is based on a 200-yard zero, then you should check zero at the actual distance, so your starting point is verified as correct. Then, if you’re serious about shooting at longer ranges, you need to verify your data all the way out. This is a stumbling block for many who don’t have ready access to a “long” range. Sorry, whether published or electronically generated, data cannot be considered valid until verified by shooting at actual distance. The farther you might consider shooting at game, the more critical this becomes!

Rigby 7x57 groups — : This Rigby 7×57 groups about 1.5 MOA with this load, a 139-grain Interlock at 2700 fps. Zeroed two inches high at 100 yards, the bullet will be “on” at 200 yards, so a dead-on hold will work to about 225 yards.

Finally, if you’ve traveled some distance—by any means—it’s important to check zero when you arrive at your hunting destination. There’s no consistency about how much (or how little) rattling around may cause a shift in point of impact, so it’s always worth checking. On long, tough hunts, I’ll usually check zero every few days, for sure if the rifle has been dropped! I also recommend checking zero after an inexplicable miss. It’s terrible for the ego, but great for peace of mind to know for sure it was your fault! When planning ammo for a distant hunt, factor in enough to check zero about three times!

TIME TO SIGHT IN! By Craig Boddington

With apologies, for some it’s too late! Rifle deer season opened in August in such diverse places as Alaska, California’s “coast zone,” and parts of South Carolina. I hope you were ready but, for most of us, deer season lies some weeks ahead. So now, as the summer doldrums persist, this is the time to get to the range and make sure your rifle is perfectly in zero and ready for the Blessed Opening Day!

Fat_ wrench — Even on .22 rimfires, accuracy depends on all mount and ring screws being tight. Wheeler’s FAT Wrench is a great tool for both checking screws and mounting scopes. A setting of 25 inch-pounds is about right for most scope mounts and rings.

Human Nature being as it is, many of us wait until the last minute, trusting Old Betsy. If she responds as usual, not a problem. However, in these times of pandemic ammo shortages, it’s better than ever to plan ahead and get to the range early.

While it’s critical to be sure you’re properly zeroed, I try to expend as few rounds as possible! Here’s how I do it:

GOT A SCREW LOOSE?

action_screws — While checking scope mount screws, also check action screws…good and snug, but not overtightened!

Saving ammo makes the first step even more important: Make sure all your screws are tight! A friend of mine in Kansas needed to zero his .243. It was a “package” rifle with an inexpensive scope. I’ve often had good results with inexpensive scopes of various brands, but, oddly, this scope was completely unmarked other than “3-9X”: No manufacturer or origin! Results were so erratic he ran out of ammo before he got it zeroed and suspected a bad scope. He left it with me, but I had no .243 ammo. I called around and neighbor Mark Woods found a couple boxes.

I agreed, probably the scope but, rather than waste more ammo, I checked all the screws. The bases were tight, but ring screws could have been tighter. That doesn’t mean the scope was good or bad; with loose screws there’s no way to know! Rather than mess around, I dug into the safe and found an older Bushnell I could lend him, knowing it had held zero on other rifles.

Mounting a scope is more difficult than checking screws, but both are a whole lot easier with proper tools! I carry gunsmith screwdrivers and Allen wrenches just about everywhere, always regretting it when I leave my little kit behind! Wheeler’s FAT Wrench torque screwdriver is a wonderful tool; you want to get screws plenty tight…but not so tight that you shear them off. Absent specific manufacturer’s instructions (a worthwhile read!), I set the FAT Wrench at 25 inch-pounds.

If you’re shooting a bolt-action, don’t forget to check the action screws! A loose action screw plays havoc on accuracy. Over-tightening can be just as bad; it’s possible to literally suck the action down into the stock, creating a bind between action and barrel. Snug, but not cranked down with all your strength!

In the field, every shot depends on having the rifle zeroed exactly where you want it!

We still don’t know if the original “unmarked” scope is good or bad. We do know it wasn’t the gun! I got it on paper, adjusted to 50-yard zero, took it to 100 yards, and shot a one-third-inch three-shot group. Mission accomplished with seven rounds expended.

ON PAPER

Before you can establish zero, you gotta get on paper. If the rifle is an old friend, maybe you can start at 100 yards, but if it’s a new rifle, new scope, or screws were loose, you’ll save ammo by starting out with a good-sized target much closer!

In order to hit any target, the line of barrel and line of sight must be roughly aligned. Gun shops and many serious shooters use optical and laser bore-sighters. Being old and a bit old-fashioned—and not needing to zero rifles daily—I usually bore-sight by eye. I have seen anomalies with optical and lasers, and I can usually get about as close by eye. Doesn’t matter how, the goal is to get on paper!

So long as you start with a checked-and-empty rifle, you can bore-sight anywhere, but I prefer doing it at the range because you must have a steady rest and a good aiming point…like a paper target. Doing it by eye assumes you can get behind the rifle and look through the barrel, then lift your head and look through the scope or sights. With bolt-actions, remove the bolt. Bore-sighting is also easy with most single-shots. With ARs, I detach the lower receiver and remove the bolt, resting the upper and barrel. More on other actions later!

Rest the rifle securely so you can center the target through the barrel. Then look through the scope (or sights). With luck, you’re pretty close, but initial differences between line of bore and line of sight are common. With optical sights, keep the line of bore securely centered on the target. Look through the scope and use your windage and elevation turrets. You can see the reticle move relative to the target. Center the reticle on the target, and double-check to make sure line of bore and line of sight both remain centered.

russiawithlove — Doesn’t matter how far; if you travel to a hunt, always verify zero at your destination. In southern Russia, Joe Bishop and Boddington put shots side-by-side; they’re ready to start the hunt!

You are ready to fire a close-range sighter. Chances are the first shot won’t be perfect, but you should be on paper. If not, check bore-sight again. If it’s still looks good, move the target closer. This is not the time for ego; save ammo and get on paper!

Once on paper, adjustments are made normally, following the “left or right, and up or down” arrows on the turret or, with iron sights, moving the rear sight in the direction you need to move the bullet strike. For scopes, you’ll need some math. Most common with American scopes today is ¼ MOA, meaning each adjustment is supposed to move the strike about ¼-inch at 100 yards. Four clicks to the inch…at 100 yards. If you got on paper at 50 yards, double the clicks; at 25 yards, quadruple the clicks. Do not expect the clicks to be consistent; only very good scopes have perfect adjustments! Articles have been written about “three-shot-zeroing” and such, but these usually assume perfect adjustments, and that’s not the real world. This is why I start with a close-range zero!

: It doesn’t matter if the firearm is a short or long-range tool. Sighting in needs to be done from a dead-steady rest, removing as much human error as possible.

With guns that don’t allow removing the bolt (lever and slide-actions, muzzleloaders, some semiautos, most handguns) bore-sighting through the barrel isn’t possible. Love my lever-actions, but getting on paper can be more difficult. If you have access to an optical or laser bore-sighter, fine. If not, start close with a big target! We keep butcher paper on the range and mark an aiming point. With scoped bolt-actions, I usually start at 50 yards with a standard 12×12-inch target. I expect to be on paper with the first shot…but I’ve done this a lot! With other firearms, I start at 25 yards or use a larger target. You must get on paper. Once you have a starting point, adjusting the strike is pretty simple.

ZERO RANGE (AND ZERO)

With rifles, there’s an urban legend that “if you’re on at 25 yards, you’ll be good at 100 yards.” This is possible with iron sights, where line of bore and line of sight are close together, but untrue with scopes because, the larger the scope and the higher the mount, the greater the distance between line of bore and line of sight. With scopes and high-velocity cartridges, if you’re “on” at 25 yards, your strike will be too high at 100 yards. At 25 yards, I adjust to an inch low. With larger scopes and fast cartridges, “dead-on” at 50 yards is usually still too high at 100. A half-inch low at 50 yards is often pretty close at 100.

Whether 25 or 50 yards, I establish an approximate close-range zero before I move out. The closer you are, the easier it is to be precise. Sighting in, and all benchrest shooting, is about removing human error and allowing the firearm to do its work.

What happens next depends on the firearm and its intended purpose. With iron sights, I zero at 50 yards and I’m done; I can no longer resolve open sights well enough to shoot meaningful groups at 100 yards! Likewise with specialized tools: Most slug guns and muzzleloaders; big bores for dangerous game.

For scoped rifles and handguns that have the capability, next stop is 100 yards. Before making adjustments, I’ll usually shoot a three-shot group, to see if the firearm will group with the load I’m using; and to see where the group prints. With reasonably accurate rifles and decent optics, there are often disparities, a bit right or left, or farther up/down than expected. 50 yards is too close! I start with a group, and then adjust to the desired point of impact. If the scope’s adjustments are accurate, this could take just one more shot.

Old friend and fellow writer Gordy Krahn made a perfect shot on this excellent blacktail at Steinbeck Vineyards during California’s August “coast zone” season. Most rifle seasons lie ahead, but Gordy had an early opportunity. He was zeroed and ready!

We haven’t practiced or compared different loads, but as far as sighting in, we’re done. With good bore-sighting and a bit of luck, seven to max ten rounds should do it! Where final point of impact should be depends on the firearm, scope, intended purpose…and personal preferences. This is actually a more complicated subject, so I think I’ll leave it until next month. That will still be ahead of most of our firearms big-game seasons!

A LEVER-ACTION COMEBACK? By Craig Boddington

The collapse of Remington is a blow to the firearms industry, and to all shooters. A possible silver lining in a dark cloud: Marlin was a Remington holding, acquired by Ruger. Doesn’t matter if you’re a Ruger fan. Ruger has a long track record of good management…and making sound firearms. Due to the changeover, Marlin firearms are not currently in production. This is a shame, but Marlin’s lever-actions will be back. I believe Ruger knew what they were doing and, at least at the start of the pandemic shortages, the all-American lever-action was making a significant comeback.

Popularity of rifle actions has been periodic, to some extent based on existing technology. The first 30 years of self-contained metallic cartridges (1860-1890) was the age of the breech-loading single shot. Effective repeaters (Henry and Spencer) were used in the American Civil War, but until the 1880s no repeaters handled large-cased blackpowder cartridges, so were limited in range and power.

Winchester M71 .348 — The classic Winchester M71 in .348 Winchester is one of Boddington’s all-time favorites. The top-eject rifle is resistant to conventional scope mounting. This 1937 rifle has a 1950s accommodation, an offset Pachmayr side mount that, a half-century later, still works very well.

Early in the 20^th Century, bolt-actions were catching on elsewhere, but American riflemen had other choices. Like the lever-action, the slide-action is primarily an American phenomenon. The “pump gun” persists as a popular shotgun action, but by 1910 slide-action rifles and early semi-autos competed with lever-guns. The lever-action won, and was America’s preferred repeating action from about 1890 until after WWII.

Bolt-actions were uncommon in the U.S. before WWI. There were no successful commercial American bolt-actions until the Savage Model 20 (1920), quickly followed by Remington’s M30 series and the Winchester M54, which became the Model 70 in 1936. Winchester and Marlin saw lever-action sales starting to fall through the 1930s, but it wasn’t until after WWII that the bolt-action became dominant. All other action types remained available, but the bolt-action was America’s favorite sporting rifle action from at least 1950 until 2000.

In WWII, America abandoned the bolt-action Springfield in favor of the semiautomatic Garand. Back then, it was widely predicted that semiauto rifles would become dominant in the postwar era. Didn’t happen, perhaps because the heavy Garand with its awkward eight-shot clip doesn’t convert well into a sporting rifle.

An ugly (but tasty) California hog taken with a Mossberg 464 .30-30. The Mossberg lever-action is similar to the Winchester 1894, but with round bolt. All 464s eject to the top right, and are drilled and tapped for optical sights. The Aimpoint on this rifle greatly enhances versatility.

Its replacement, the M14 (civilian version: Springfield Armory’s M1A series) is a great rifle. However, the M14 it was America’s general-issue service rifle for just a decade, not long enough to earn the charisma it deserves. It was the AR15 action that turned the tide…but it didn’t happen overnight. The AR15 (and similar) semiautomatic sporters didn’t gain huge civilian popularity until the 1990s, a quarter-century after the M16 was adopted by the military.

When the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) craze finally hit, it hit big-time. Almost suddenly, AR15s (and clones) were red-hot; at one point 90 firms were making them. I used M16-series rifles in the Marines for 30 years. I know and like the platform, and I have a couple. It’s a great rifle, reliable and accurate. The MSR can be accessorized to your heart’s content, but it has limitations. Action length and magazine box are finite, so there’s only so much power that can be harnessed. You can’t make an AR15 into a general-purpose elk rifle or a long-range target rifle.

A bigger problem for me: Aside from accessories, I find them all too similar. Some guys probably do, but I can’t imagine owning a bunch of MSRs! Maybe some folks agreed, maybe the pipeline was filled, perhaps the demand was satisfied. By 2020 sales of MSRs declined, and manufacturers fell away.

During the pandemic things were weird, with panic buying, low supplies, and high prices. It’s hard to predict what the world will look like when normalcy returns, but in early 2020 (before the wheels came off), all companies that manufactured lever-actions reported excellent sales.

A good Nebraska ten-pointer, taken with a Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum. This late-production rifle is one of the slickest, smoothest lever-actions Boddington has owned, and accuracy is amazing.

Winchester got a boost from the 125^th anniversary of the Model 1894 (in 2019). Browning and Winchester together continued to have sellouts of limited runs of classic lever-actions. Browning’s BLR has never been a big seller, but it’s steady. The BLR is the world’s foremost “modern” lever-action, chambered to high-pressure cartridges, able to handle sharp-pointed bullets, and suitable for conventional scope mounting. Mossberg’s 464 lever-action .30-30 was exceeding projections, especially for the tricked-up “tactical” versions. Henry was selling all the lever-actions they could make.

Marlin, too, was at last doing well. The Remington acquisition included a plant move and massive loss of talent, with a long break in production. Finally, they were up and running, making good guns that were selling well. Their “Dark” series 336 rifles were in huge demand, likewise their big 1895 .45-70s. I have a late-production Marlin Model 1894 .44 Magnum, stainless steel/laminate stock. It is the smoothest, slickest lever-action I’ve ever owned, and exceptionally accurate.

Boddington used his 1920 1899 Savage .250-3000 to drop this big boar. From the beginning, the Savage lever-action was adaptable to scope mounting, and its under-the-bolt magazine allowed spitzer bullets. This early Savage was never drilled and tapped, so Boddington prefers to leave it “as is” and use the tang-mounted receiver sight.

My guess is the next generation of Marlin rifles—under Ruger ownership—will be just as good, and will provide more options to shooters discovering (and re-discovering) the lever-action. Me, I’m kind of a nut on them. I have ARs in different cartridges, love them, can’t imagine not having them…but my lever-actions are a passion. I am not a collector, but I just counted up: Including obsolete and current models, I have lever-actions from six different manufacturers…in eight centerfire cartridges, plus .22 rimfire.

My point isn’t to make a comparison, but the average lever-action probably isn’t as accurate as the average MSR, and they share an important limitation: Like ARs, lever-actions have finite limits on cartridge size. Ultimately, this places limits on velocity, energy, and suitable uses…with exceptions. The 1895 Winchester was chambered to .30-06, but not without rumors of pressure issues. Browning’s BLR is thus the major exception, made in short and long action, and chambered to belted magnums and unbelted short magnums.

Boddington and George Taulman with a fine Colorado Shiras moose

Several excellent (long-gone) lever-actions were able to handle the .308 Winchester family of cartridges: Sako Finnwolf, Savage 99, Winchester 88. Henry’s Long Rider and the BLR still handle the .308, and the BLR goes much farther. This type of lever action, side-eject with box magazines, have two important advantages: They allow conventional scope mounting over the receiver, and can be used with spitzer (sharp-pointed) bullets.

The lever-action was developed with a tubular magazine long before spitzer bullets existed. Conventional sharp-pointed bullets cannot be used in a tube because of potential detonation under recoil. The requirement to use blunt-nosed bullets in tubular-magazine rifles has long been a performance limitation because of poor aerodynamics. To some extent, Arthur Savage got lucky; his lever-action used a rotary magazine under the bolt, but it wasn’t initially designed because it allowed spitzer bullets!

Bison M94 Boone and Crockett: The golden age of lever-actions! This is a staged photo, possibly for Winchester promotion. It dates to late 19th/early 20th Century, because the rifles are early Model 1894s (forgive the unsafe gun handling!), and by that time bison were almost gone

Riflescopes didn’t come into widespread use until after WWII, so few lever-actions included ease of scope mounting as a design criterion. Again, Arthur Savage got lucky; in the 1950s, the Savage 99 lever-action was the first production rifle to be drilled-and-tapped for scope mounts as standard! John Marlin also got lucky. Early on, his lever-actions evolved into side-eject, not to facilitate scope mounting, but because he thought it was better than Winchester’s top-ejection.

So, Marlin and Savage lever-actions were ready for the scope era, and the Savage 99 handled spitzer bullets from inception. Winchester engineers probably long understood the growing limitation of top-eject, tubular magazine rifles…but didn’t do anything about either. Finally, in 1982, they changed the Model 1894’s top-ejection to “Angle-Eject,” allowing over-the-receiver scope mounting.

The requirement to use blunt-nosed bullets in tubular-magazine rifles remained a performance limitation clear up until 2005, when Hornady introduced their FTX (Flex-Tip-eXpanding) bullet with sharp but compressible polymer tip. Initially loaded in their LeveRevolution line (with proprietary propellants that increased velocity without raising pressure), the FTX bullet changed the game for tubular-magazine lever-actions. The most common lever-action cartridges are now included in the LeveRevolution line with FTX bullets, including .25-35 and my beloved .348 Winchester. As a companion, there’s now also the MonoFlex homogenous-alloy bullet with flexible tip. In California, we must use unleaded bullets for all hunting. So, out there, I hunt with MonoFlex in .30-30 and .45-70…but there isn’t a MonoFlex .348 bullet…yet!

94 top vs angle — Like most Winchester lever-actions, the M94 was top-eject for its first 88 years of production, precluding over-the-receiver scope mounting. In 1982, finally, “Angle-Eject” was introduced, with most recent M94s drilled and tapped for scopes. Top, a late top-eject M94; bottom, a post-1982 Angle-Eject rifle.

Although not entirely fair, I think of the lever-action as a short to very medium-range platform. This is fine for me; I don’t always need range. If I do, I use something else. My lever-actions are perfect for pig hunting, and just fine for most of my deer hunting.

We’ll see what the post-pandemic world brings, but I believe the lever-action was enjoying a revival. So, the important question: Why? Nostalgia and tradition count to some of us, to others not at all. To those for whom they count, the lever-action is America: John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, the Gun That Won the West! More practically, the lever-action can be short, light, fast-handling, and fast to operate. Between the Winchester 1894 and Marlin 336 alone, there are more than ten million .30-30 lever-action rifles out there, millions of them in the deer woods every fall. Surely that many of us couldn’t have been wrong?

LEGENDS OF .35-CALIBERS by Craig Boddington

In rifle cartridges, it is said that the .35-caliber has never been popular. This is probably true, but must be taken in context. In the U.S., sales of all rifles and cartridges above .30-caliber fall off the cliff. This makes sense. The whitetail deer is the primary big-game animal for millions of American hunters. Circumstances are rare (if they exist!) where a larger caliber than the all-American .30 is needed to kill a deer.

35_ cartridge lineup — 35 cartridge lineup: A century of great American .35-caliber cartridges, none extremely popular today, but all still loaded. Left to right: .35 Remington, .348 Winchester, .358 Winchester, .350 Remington Magnum, .35 Whelen

Even so, there are many “over-.30” cartridges…before you get up to the highly specialized big-bore cartridges for dangerous game. The 8mm (.32-caliber or .323-inch bullet) has never done especially well over here. The .33 (.338-inch bullet) has done better, but even the .338 Winchester Magnum took off slowly because word got out that it was a hard kicker. No kidding? A marvelous elk cartridge, the .338 Winchester Magnum is not a deer cartridge. From there you step up to the European 9.3mm (.366-inch) and .375. I love various cartridges in both diameters and often use them in Africa, but their utility in North America is limited. Often overlooked, there is a rich tradition of .35-caliber cartridges.

Both Remington and Winchester have long histories with .35s. Introduced in 1906 and still loaded, the .35 Remington is the longest-running .35. Slow and with mild recoil, its heavy 200-grain bullet made its bones as a deep-woods thumper for whitetails and black bears.

A half-century passed before Remington introduced another .35! The .350 Remington Magnum (1965) was ahead of its time, a short magnum designed for short bolt-actions. In Remington’s too-light M600 carbine the .350 Remington Magnum was a hard-kicking beast. It never had a chance, although it has become almost a cult cartridge among black bear hunters. I had a .350 Remington Magnum on a left-hand short-action M700. Built by MGA, it was light…but not too light, and very effective.

Based on the .30-06 case necked up, the .35 Whelen was developed in 1922. It persisted as a fairly common wildcat, finally legitimized by Remington in 1988. The previous fall, I took one of the prototypes to Alaska and flattened a huge moose with a quartering-to shot. Using a 250-grain round-nose, I will never forget how that big animal went over backwards. Since then, the .35 Whelen has become a fairly standard cartridge, great for elk and capable up to big bears, but without magnum recoil or blast.

Winchester has even deeper ties to the .35. Their first, the .35 Winchester, was introduced in 1903 in the 1895 lever-action. The weak .35 Winchester Self-Loading (WSL) was introduced in their semiautomatic M1905. Two years later, they beefed up both the rifle and cartridge with the Winchester 1907 and .351 WSL. Although reliable, these early Winchester self-loaders used blow-back actions, and couldn’t house cartridges as powerful as Remington’s Model 8 (and its .35 Remington).

A set of 100-yard groups with a Mossberg Patriot in .350 Legend, fired with Hornady 170-grain Interlock. So far, groups in this rifle haven’t been spectacular but the Legend is a maximum 200-yard cartridge; this is much more accuracy than required.

At heart, Winchester was a lever-action company. In the mid-1930s, they wanted to replace both the Winchester M1886 and its .33 Winchester; and the M1895 in .35 Winchester with a faster, more powerful cartridge…in a less expensive tubular magazine lever-action. The result was the .348 Winchester in the M71. Arguably a “.35,” the .348 was the fastest factory cartridge ever housed in a tubular-magazine lever-action.

The .348 remains legendary, but its time had passed; the big, rimmed case was never adapted to any other factory rifles. The top-eject M71 resists conventional scope mounting, and until Hornady’s FTX bullet, blunt-nosed bullets with poor aerodynamics were mandatory.

Belatedly seeing the writing on the wall, in 1955 Winchester introduced the .358 Winchester in the M88. The cartridge was intended to replace the .348, the rifle to replace the M71. With side ejection (conventional scope mounting), box magazine (spitzer bullets), and forward-locking rotating bolt, the M88 was Winchester’s fourth most popular lever-action, after Models 1894, 1892, and 1873. The .358 didn’t do as well; it’s an uncommon chambering, and that’s a shame. It’s a wonderful little cartridge, efficient and powerful. I’ve had several .358s and want to get another! Unfortunately, the .358 was born in the first magnum craze, when Americans craved velocity; the .358 just isn’t fast. Browning’s BLR is the last factory .358.

Initial acceptance of the .350 Legend has allowed rapid proliferation of loads, including inexpensive loads with 9mm pistol bullets for target shooting. A partial selection includes, left to right: Browning 124-gr. FMJ; Winchester 145-gr. FMJ; Winchester 255-gr. subsonic; Browning 155-gr. BXR; Hornady 165-gr. FTX; and Hornady 170-gr. Interlock.

The .358 deserves more popularity, but it did better than Winchester’s next .35. Introduced in 1982, the .356 Winchester is essentially a semi-rimmed version of the .358, designed for a beefed-up version of the M1894. At the muzzle, the .356 is much the same as the .358, but it quickly falls behind because its blunt-nosed bullets. My friend Paul Cestoni has one and swears by it for close-cover hunting (why not), but it’s a rare bird.

I was surprised when Winchester tried again with 2019’s .350 Legend. Some folks groused about the name, suggesting that “legends” are earned. Hey, cartridges must have names! I prefer a recognizable name to confusing alphabet soup, and Winchester has a history of whimsical cartridge names, including Bee, Swift, and Zipper.

The .350 Legend is a clever cartridge. Winchester calls it “purpose-driven.”: A short-range deer cartridge that takes advantage of “straight-wall cartridges for deer” legislation, adaptable to current rifle platforms.

Boddington believes it was the inability for over-the-receiver scope mounting that sounded the death knell for classic top-eject Winchester lever-actions. This M71 in .348 has a Pachmayr offset side mount, a 1950s accommodation to try to solve the problem. The rifle shoots well with vintage Weaver K2.5.

In the many states that required shotguns (or muzzleloaders) for deer, the intent was always to limit projectile distance. With whitetails overpopulated and increased hunter participation desirable, five former “shotgun states” allow “straight-wall” cartridges in some seasons or areas.

Criteria and dimensions are tight. Old rifle cartridges like .38-55 and .45-70 usually fall into line. Until the Legend, the primary “modern” alternative was the .450 Bushmaster. When Ruger chambered their bolt-action American to Bushmaster, they saw a huge spike in sales in Michigan alone! Problem: The hard-kicking Bushmaster is too much gun for many.

Manitoba bb BLR 358: Boddington and “Trapper Don” McRae with a Manitoba black bear taken with a Browning BLR in .358 Winchester. Sadly, the BLR is the last factory rifle chambered to .358, a fine cartridge that deserves more popularity than it ever achieved.

Enter the Legend. With hunting bullets of 155 to 170 grains and velocities averaging about 2200 fps, .350 Legend is in league with the .30-30 and .35 Remington. This is not damning with faint praise, but those classic deer cartridges have bottleneck cases, so cannot be used in “straight wall” states. Like the .30-30 and .35 Remington, the Legend is (at best) a 200-yard deer cartridge. That’s what it’s supposed to be and, that beats the effective range of most slug guns and muzzleloaders!

Using a rebated .223 rim with overall length of 2.25 inches, the Legend fits in the AR15 action, and is readily adaptable to bolt-actions. It uses 9mm diameter (.357-inch), enabling inexpensive target ammo loaded with pistol bullets.

This Texas hog was dropped in its tracks with an original Winchester Model 71 Deluxe in .348 Winchester, using Hornady’s new sharp-pointed 200-grain FTX .348 load. The M71 was the only factory rifle ever chambered to .348

If you hunt where centerfire rifles are legal for deer, this straight-wall thing probably isn’t a big deal. It’s huge for deer hunters who “make do” with slug guns! Initial acceptance has been dramatic, leading to an unusually wide selection of loads for a new cartridge. I apply for deer in Iowa, so I bought a basic Mossberg Patriot in .350 Legend. So far, accuracy isn’t dramatic, but plenty good for the cartridge’s effective range. I haven’t yet hunted deer with it, but I used it on several Texas hogs. Recoil and report are mild and, with large frontal area, it hits hard…though not as hard as a .348 or .358. Nor should it; both of those cartridges are faster and carry more energy. Next spring, I intend to use the Legend on a black bear. It seems to me the .35s go together with boars and bears like peas and carrots!

Winchester has the longest history with “.35-caliber” rifle cartridges. Left to right: .35 Winchester (1903); .348 Winchester (1935); .358 Winchester (1955); .356 Winchester (1982); .350 Legend (2019).

.35 BULLET DIAMETERS AND THE “MISSING LINK”

Most American (and all Remington) “.35” rifle cartridges have used .358-inch bullets. Winchester has not been so consistent; the .35 and .358 Winchester do, but the .35 WSL used a .351-inch bullet, and the .351 WSL uses .352-inch. The .348 Winchester is also oddball, using a literal .348-inch bullet. European “.35” rifle cartridges (as in 9×57 Mauser) used the 9mm designation, so the same .357-inch bullet at the .350 Legend.

Missing from the .35-caliber lineup has been an extra-fast .35, but not without effort; there have been several proprietaries and wildcats. This probably starts with the .350 Rigby Magnum (1908). A century ago, Charles Newton’s proprietary .35 Newton had a following, as did the .350 Griffin & Howe Magnum (based on the .375 H&H case). Layne Simpson followed up his 7mm Shooting Times Western with the .358 Shooting Times Alaskan. It didn’t progress past wildcat form and, so far, neither has the 36 Nosler. The .358 Norma Magnum is a factory cartridge. It never caught on, but Schultz & Larsen and Husqvarna offered rifles.

Nilgai m71 348: Of all the .35s, Boddington has the most history with the Winchester M71 and its .348 Winchester cartridge. He used a handloaded 250-grain Barnes Original bullet to take this big nilgai bull on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Other than recoil and redundancy with established .33s, one reason why a fast .35 has never “made it”: With proper bullets, it would be adequate for just about anything but, unlike the 9.3mms and .375s, .35-caliber is generally not “street-legal” for larger African game.

AR PLATFORM PERFORMANCE By Craig Boddington

More juice from the lemon?

Warm, sunny midday, we were tootling around Zack Aultman’s place in southern Georgia in a four-wheeler. A decent-sized boar jumped up on the forest verge and started jinking across a clear-cut, running at top speed like a champion broken-field runner. Zack was driving and there was an AR-15 between us. I knew it had a loaded magazine in the well, but I was a second slow on the uptake and the pig had already covered some ground before I got the rifle charged and up. The first shot felt good, but I guess the pig zig-zagged out of the way because there was no apparent effect.

Boddington and his friend Zack Aultman with a Georgia hog dropped in its tracks at about 200 yards with the .308 Arrow cartridge. Based on the 7.62x39mm with body taper removed, this cartridge seems to develop about as much bullet weight, velocity, and downrange energy as can be wrung out of the AR15 platform

I lost sight in some brush and figured I’d had my chance—and then the pig reappeared, still in the open and streaking off, now pushing 200 yards. Swinging hard, I got with the pig and a bit ahead. Lucky shots sometimes happen; at the second shot the pig somersaulted in a cloud of dust. The animal had gone down so fast—and so hard—that I assumed I’d broken the spine. Nope, by mysterious coincidence (or the pig’s incredibly bad luck), the bullet had struck center on the shoulder, and there was no exit.

My friend Zack enjoys a long deer season on his place, and has an ongoing problem with feral hogs. He’s also a bit of a rifle addict, so there’s no telling what he might have on hand. Other than to verify it was a “normal” AR with empty chamber and cartridges in the magazine, I hadn’t looked closely at the rifle when Zack handed it to me. Considering hogs are always in season and, knowing Zack, I assumed it was reasonably zeroed. Now we both paused and took a closer look, because the way this little rifle flattened that hog was impressive.

AR Bolt — Almost all rifle actions have limits on cartridge size. The standard AR15 bolt face is sized to the .223/5.56mm’s .378-inch rim diameter. The bolt face can be altered, but the AR15’s integral magazine well and magazine put a sharp limit on cartridge length.

Look, maybe that was a fluke…like my shot. No two animals react exactly alike upon receiving a bullet, and flukes can be both good and bad. So, when evaluating cartridge and bullet performance on game, it’s risky to make assumptions based on limited exposure. I make no definitive claim, but terminal performance gave us pause. The rifle was from Arrow Arms in nearby Macon, Georgia, and the cartridge was their proprietary .308 Arrow, propelling a 125-grain jacketed hollowpoint at 2814 feet per second.

The .308 Arrow, left, shown with its parent cartridge, the 7.62x39mm Russian. Essentially an “improved” version, the .308 Arrow increases velocity by removing body taper and using a sharper shoulder angle.

There’s nothing magic about those numbers, slower than a .308 Winchester, also faster, and yielding more energy at 200 yards, than anything else I’ve shot out of an AR15 platform. The AR10 was developed for the 7.62×51 (.308 Winchester) cartridge. In the late 1950s, Gene Stoner and his team the AR10 scaled down the AR10 to create the AR15, lighter, handier, and intended for smaller, less powerful cartridges. The .223 Remington was essentially a parallel development, created in 1957 to fit the AR15 action.

Remington released the .223 Remington as a sporting cartridge in 1963, and in 1964 both the .223 (5.56mm) and M16 were adopted by the U.S. military. The .223 quickly became a popular varmint and target cartridge, but decades would pass before semiautomatic sporting versions of the AR15 achieved widespread popularity. During most of those decades, the AR15 and the .223 Remington (after 1980, 5.56x45mm NATO) were inextricably linked, with few other options.

During the last 20 years, much effort has been expended developing cartridges that increase, or significantly alter, performance from an AR15 action. Cartridges are often developed for specific actions…especially popular actions. And, most rifle actions have limitations. Over decades, Winchester developed several cartridges for their 1894 lever-action. Most were based on the .30-30 case because the ’94 needs a rimmed case…and the action has both pressure and cartridge dimension limitations.

The .300 AAC Blackout has become extremely popular. Although it offers the advantage of using standard AR magazines, it was at least partly designed for suppressed fire. Velocity is low, and Boddington considers it extremely marginal for hunting.

Even the versatile bolt-action has restrictions. Classic and current bolt-actions like the 98 Mauser, Winchester Model 70, Remington Model 700, and Savage 110 can be adapted to a wide range of cartridges, but cannot house the largest cartridges like the .338 Lapua and .378 Weatherby family (although there are extra-large bolt-actions that can).

Action length is always a consideration. As a detachable-magazine rifle with integral magazine well, the AR15 action is limited to cartridge length of 2.275 inches. This is a short centerfire rifle cartridge. Cartridge overall length specification is 2.825 inches for the popular 6.5mm Creedmoor. The Creedmoor (and the entire .308 Winchester-based family) fits easily into the AR10 action (because that’s the cartridge size it was designed for), but you simply cannot house that size of cartridge or that level of power into an AR15 action.

On the bench with a left-hand-eject AR from Wilson Combat. The incredible popularity of the AR15 platform has led to much cartridge development. There are numerous options but, ultimately, the action size can yield only so much power.

There’s only so much juice to squeeze from a lemon. However, because of the incredible popularity of the platform, a lot of cartridges have been developed to squeeze just a bit more juice from the AR15. Cartridge length is the primary limiting factor. The .223 Remington case can be necked up or down, changing bullet diameter and weight, which dictates potential velocity. The .223/5.56mm rim diameter is .378-inch. Without altering bolt face, this is also a limitation, and you can’t alter the case shape much without going to cartridge-specific magazines.

Depending on chambering, ARs are suitable for a wide range of hunting. For sure, it’s a ball to use an AR for shooting prairie dogs!

Among others, the very fast .17 Remington is the .223 case necked down; the .300 AAC Blackout is the .223/5.56mm shortened and necked up, but designed so standard 5.56mm magazines can be used. The AR15 action can handle a wider or fatter case, which increases powder capacity. Winchester’s .350 Legend retains the .378-inch rim and, at 2.25 inches, is short enough. However, the rim is rebated (smaller than the base), and the base diameter is larger (.390 inches). Wider cases with rebated rims are also how they cram the .30 Remington AR and .450 Bushmaster into the AR15 action. Both of these use a rim diameter and bolt face of .473-inch, same as the .30-06. Performance is amazing from the little AR15 action. However, magazines must be modified (with a single-stack follower), and magazine capacity is greatly reduced.

Jason Morton and Boddington with a good Kansas whitetail taken with a CZ 527 bolt-action in 6.5mm Grendel. AR15-compatible, the Grendel is a versatile hunting cartridge but, provided velocity is meaningful, no 6.5mm can hit as hard as a .30-caliber.

It’s probably not a coincidence of design that the AR15 action easily houses the 2.2-inch 7.62x39mm Russian. Propelling a 123-grain bullet at a bit over 2400 fps, the 7.62 Russian is obviously a long-proven military cartridge. It’s also a pretty good hunting cartridge, effective on deer and hogs at short to (very) medium range, with performance on game on par with the .30-30 (which is not damning with faint praise). With rim diameter of .447, the standard .223/5.56mm bolt face won’t work, and specific magazines are required, but the 7.62mm Russian is a fairly common and popular AR chambering. The 6.5mm Grendel, which I like very much, is simply the 7.62x39mm case necked down with body taper removed. It is much faster, propelling a 123-grain bullet 2650 fps. Now 20 years old, the 6.8mm SPC Remington is another option. Designed as a military cartridge to offer better terminal performance than the 5.56×45 yet with minimal reduction in magazine capacity, the 6.8 SPC is also an effective short to (very) medium range hunting cartridge. Based on the old .30 Remington, the 6.8 SPC has rim diameter of .422-inch. Although never widely adopted by the military, the 6.8 has its fans, but I never warmed up to it.

An Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel in a prairie dog town. With light recoil and the aerodynamic advantages of 6.5mm bullets, the Grendel is a wonderfully versatile AR cartridge…but the 6.5mm (.264-inch) bullet doesn’t have the hitting power of a .30-caliber.

As a hunting cartridge, I considered the 6.5mm Grendel one of the most versatile options for an AR, and still do. Then, by chance, I ran into the .308 Arrow. It is nothing more, nor less, than the 7.62mm Russian case, blown out to remove body taper, with sharper shoulder, but retaining the .30-caliber bullet. It is thus essentially an “improved” version. A proprietary of Arrow Arms (www.arrowarms.net), the improvement is considerable, with Hornady offering cases and dies. Arrow Arms loads are rated: 125-grain bullet at 2814 fps; 130-grain bullet at 2739; and 150-grain bullet at 2545 fps. This is still far short of .308 Winchester velocity; that’s just not possible from the AR15 action. However, these are very credible velocities: Much faster than the .300 Blackout, 7.62 Russian, or .30-30, and in the ballpark with the .300 Savage (also not damning with faint praise).

A couple of hogs taken at sunset with a .350 Legend. Although chambered in bolt-actions, Winchester’s .350 Legend is AR15-compatible, sharing the .223/5.56mm bolt face. In any action type, it’s a fine short-range hunting cartridge, but lacks the velocity to be effective beyond about 200 yards.

Unlike many of the AR cartridges, the .308 Arrow was not designed as an alternative military cartridge, nor for use with suppressor; it was designed as a hunting cartridge, to wring maximum .30-caliber performance from the AR15 platform. Again, it’s dangerous to reach conclusions based on limited exposure. However, like so many Americans, I believe in .30-caliber performance…and I believe in at least moderate velocity. We probably have all the cartridges we need (maybe too many), so I don’t predict huge popularity for the .308 arrow. Even so, it’s a sound cartridge that really does squeeze a bit more juice out of the AR platform. I’m going to spend a bit more time with it.

BULLET DILEMMAS by Craig Boddington

Things are pretty simple right now: We shoot what we’ve got…or whatever we can get! This may not be as awful as it sounds: I don’t think there are any bad bullets on the market today. However, most bullets are better for some things than others and (at least in normal times), there are so many to choose from that it gets downright confusing.

270_Group_1 — Boddington’s old .270 Winchester groups exceptionally well with Hornady’s SST, an accurate fast-opening bullet excellent for deer-sized game. For larger game he’d probably shift to a tougher bullet…even if group size wasn’t quite as good.

When I was a kid, we mostly hunted with Remington Core-Lokts or Winchester Power-Points in factory ammo. In handloads, primary choices were Hornady, Sierra, and Speer, all fairly simple lead-core bullets. The only “premium” hunting bullet known to deliver extra penetration was John Nosler’s Partition, introduced in 1948, back then also the exclusive province of handloaders. Polymer tips, bonded cores, and homogenous-alloy bullets were unknown!

Name any bullet, and you can find shooters who swear by it…and others who damn it. Not everybody liked the Nosler Partition, but it was considered the hot ticket for game larger and tougher than deer. When I got ready for my first African hunt, I hadn’t yet used any Partitions. Following conventional wisdom, I loaded up 180-grain Partitions in my .30-06. The spectacular performance I saw on about 15 head of plains game, large and small, was unforgettable.

Win_ 300 _200gr_ ELD-X — Boddington Jarrett .300 Winchester Magnum shoots 200-grain ELD-X so well with factory ammo that a handload as accurate was elusive. Old standby IMR 4350 turned in a .407-inch five-shot group, bottom left. The velocity isn’t quite what he wants, so that’s another dilemma needing a compromise.

Today we have many choices, but the Partition is still produced…and still a good bullet. In 1948, the only other option for ensuring better penetration was to increase bullet weight! The .30-06 “made its bones” with 220-grain bullets; the 7×57 with 175-grain bullets; the early 6.5mms with 160-grain bullets, all round-nosed. Today’s long and heavy-for-caliber “low drag” bullets complicate the issue, but few of us hunt with extra-heavy bullets today. Because: With modern hunting bullets, we don’t need extreme weight to ensure performance. And: In any given cartridge case, the heavier the bullet, the less velocity.

Which brings us back to my previous column: The accuracy and velocity that we Americans crave. Obtaining both in equal measure is usually a compromise! There’s no predicting what bullet or load a certain rifle will shoot best. Right now, availability sucks, but we have such variety in factory ammo that you could spend a fortune trying loads in popular cartridges…and never discover the best combination for your rifle. Handloaders can experiment infinitely, but it’s always a compromise: Accurate enough…and fast enough. As you work up handloads, it’s common to discover that the best groups are obtained long before you approach “maximum.”

.264@129-grain — There’s no telling exactly what bullet or load a given rifle will shoot best. Boddington was working up loads for his .264. He knows the rifle shoots AccuBonds well, but he expected the best groups from Berger. At the range, the winner on this day was 129-grain Hornady Interlocks he’s had on the shelf since the Sixties. You never know until you try!

Reality: You never know what works best until you try! I would always expect the best groups from “match” bullets, but I’ve seen finicky rifles that seemed hopeless until, in frustration or on a whim, they turned in spectacular groups with old round-nose bullets! So, the search for optimum accuracy in a given rifle is almost never exhausted. We hunters complicate things greatly by seeking the “perfect” bullet for the game we’re hunting.

Let’s simplify things: There are no perfect hunting bullets. Fortunately, there are lots of good choices and no “bad” hunting bullets. It’s more a matter of understanding the expansion and penetrating properties you want, in relation to the size of your game.

eight recovered bonded-core bullets. Right, recovered homogenous-alloy bullets. Copper bullets cannot expand as much as bonded-core bullets but, with less expansion, they will deliver deeper penetration. Neither type is always this “pretty” when recovered…it depends on impact velocity and what they encounter!

Most bullet manufacturers offer “match” or “target” bullets, engineered for maximum accuracy without thought to terminal performance on game. No manufacturers recommend match bullets for hunting, but because they are often the most accurate, some hunters use them anyway, especially at long range (where accuracy matters most). Sometimes they work well, but because they were not designed for terminal performance, they can be erratic on game. I have seen match bullets expand prematurely and fail to penetrate; and I have seen them pass through showing almost no expansion. So, this is a major compromise when choosing game bullets: The projectiles likely to be the most accurate (and produce the flattest trajectories) are probably not the best choices for hunting.

Hunting bullets are a complex subject, and divisive: Everybody who’s shot a deer is an expert, and if there’s a problem the bullet is always the culprit, never shot placement!

On the California Central Coast, we have great hunting for blacktail deer and feral hogs. By law we must now hunt with “unleaded projectiles.” In rifles, this means: Barnes “X”-series, Hornady GMX, Nosler E-Tip, etc. Some barrels shoot these homogenous alloy bullets extremely well…and some do not. This complicates the normal accuracy variance present with all bullets.

Randy Brooks, inventor of the Barnes X bullet, and Boddington with a Colorado bull, taken at 350 yards with a single 180-grain Barnes X from a .300 Winchester Magnum. All homogenous-alloy bullets are “penetrators;” the larger the game, the better they work!

Let’s understand the design. The “copper-alloy” bullets have a hollow nose cavity surrounded by a notched or “skived” tip. Upon impact, the nose peels back in petals, with expansion limited by size and depth of the nose cavity. These vary (and some also have polymer tips), but the homogenous alloy bullets are penetrating bullets. They will retain near-complete weight, and will usually exit, but the wound channel is limited by the amount of expansion.

I’ve taken a lot of game with Barnes X and GMX bullets. For me, the bigger the animal, the better they work! They are impressive on feral hogs, but on our small-bodied blacktails they tend to punch through and exit. They work, but more tracking is often needed. American hunters are big on the “behind the shoulder lung shot” because it is surely fatal, offers the largest target, and ruins little meat. I tell my California hunting buddies to borrow a chapter from African PHs, who always recommend a “center shoulder” hold, breaking heavy bone and disrupting the major vessels at the top of the heart. A little more meat is damaged, but usually less tracking!

goodbullets — There are lots of good bullets…and few (if any) “bad” bullets. It gets confusing, but the idea is to figure out what performance characteristics you want for the game you are hunting.

The opposite of a pass-through with minimal damage is worse: Premature expansion with a nasty surface wound. This will not happen with a homogenous-alloy bullet. But it shouldn’t happen with any bullet marketed as a hunting bullet. Except: Velocity is the great enemy to bullet performance. At moderate velocities: 6.5mm Creedmoor, 7mm-08, .308, .30-06, there are no bad bullets, and anything other than excellent bullet performance is unusual.

Add several hundred feet per second in velocity and things can change. I love polymer-tipped bullets: They don’t batter in the magazine, and have better aerodynamics than an exposed lead tip. However, the polymer tip always initiates expansion, mitigated by thickness of jacket and bullet weight. Accuracy is often excellent! I like Nosler’s AccuTip and Hornady’s SST…for deer-sized game. For larger game, or at high impact velocities, I prefer to mitigate with core-bonding. Tipped-and-bonded bullets include: Federal Trophy Tip, Hornady InterBond, Nosler AccuBond; and Swift Scirocco.

Donna Boddington took this big California boar with a 139-grain GMX from a 7mm-08. With “unleaded bullets” required by law for all hunting, California hunters are learning to use shoulder/heart shots with the deep-penetrating all-copper bullets.

With lead core chemically bonded to jacket, a bonded-core bullet will expand much more than is possible with any homogenous-alloy bullet. The bonded-core bullet cannot retain quite as much weight; some lead will wipe away during penetration, but retention is still high. Homogenous-alloy bullets usually retain over 95 percent of their weight. Bonded-core bullets will be in the high 80s into the 90s…and everything else may be 60 percent or less. This is not a problem: The larger wound channel created by bullet expansion is what puts game down faster.

You can’t have it both ways: Unless you’re hunting pachyderms with “solids,” bullet expansion is good. But expansion creates more resistance, and must limit penetration. In my younger days I followed the school that wanted both entrance and exit wounds. Back then, only the Nosler Partition reliably exited! Today, I’m happy to have the bullet expend all its energy inside the animal, not against trees on the far side! However, an exit wound is prima facie evidence of adequate penetration! Absent that, you must have a bullet tough enough to absolutely penetrate deep into the vitals!

This Alabama whitetail dropped in its tracks to a 130-grain SST from a .270 Winchester. Boddington believes the polymer-tipped lead-core bullets are excellent for deer-sized game, usually yielding dramatic results.

These are bullet dilemmas…but not so complex, with multiple solutions. In January ’21 I hunted whitetails in Alabama with friend Gordon Marsh, proprietor of this site. Gordon lucked into a very accurate Ruger No. One in .270 Weatherby Magnum (a rare No. One chambering). His rifle produces one-hole groups with 130-grain Barnes TSX. This rifle likes homogenous-alloy bullets…at extreme velocity (3400 fps!).

I used a .270 Winchester, loaded with 130-grain Hornady SST about 400 fps slower, good groups but nothing like the accuracy of Gordon’s rifle. A buck presented himself at 225 yards, and I flattened him, down so hard he bounced. The bullet exited, good expansion but no mess.

Gordon Marsh used a 130-grain TTSX for his Alabama buck, the bullet was pushed very fast from a .270 Weatherby Magnum. Despite good shot placement, the buck ran 100 yards into the woods and required tracking. This can always happen, but isn’t uncommon with extra-tough bullets employed on medium-sized game.

Next day, Gordon shot a similar buck, about 150 yards. Good blood on the food plot, exit wound obvious…but not much sign where his buck entered the woods. We found him 125 yards into thick timber, perfect shot placement…and almost no blood trail. Nobody has hunted with all the great bullets we have today. I’ve used many and have favorites, but it depends on what the gun likes, what I have (or can get), and what I’m hunting.

If we were talking elk, moose, or Cape buffalo it’s a different discussion. But, in the large world of shooting deer and hoping not to track them into thick stuff, I’m convinced we would have found Gordon’s buck quicker if he’d used a bullet that expanded more…even if it wasn’t quite as fast, or produced groups as tight!

ACCURACY AND VELOCITY By Craig Boddington

This old Savage 99 in .300 Savage passes the “paper plate test” easily. Provided the terrain doesn’t require long shooting, older rifles like this should put meat in the freezer with no problem.

American rifle shooters have long been obsessed by accuracy and velocity, demanding more of both than is really necessary. Mind you, neither are bad things, although it depends on what you’re doing. In target shooting, accuracy is everything, although shooting disciplines and target sizes vary widely. In hunting, let’s be honest, the vital zone of a deer-sized animal is not a small target, and it’s exactly the same size at 40 or 400 yards. If you can consistently hit a volleyball or a ten-inch paper plate you should have venison for the freezer. That vital zone looks smaller and, for sure, becomes harder to hit as distance increases, but it’s still a large target.

This is the level of accuracy that you simply must have for a serious varmint rifle, in this case Boddington’s Ruger No. One in .204 Ruger. Groups like this probably aren’t essential for most big-game hunting…but they build a lot of confidence!

Obviously, different situations require more or less accuracy. I shoot the occasional coyote on the Kansas farm, and we wear out the armadillos because they dig up the yard, but an annual prairie dog shoot is my primary varmint hunting. A prairie dog is about three inches from back to belly so, that’s the window you must hit, and we do some of our prairie dog shooting beyond 400 yards. A one-inch group at 100 yards, what we call “Minute of Angle” (MOA) can be expected to naturally disperse to four inches at 400 yards…without taking into account wind and wobble. One MOA accuracy isn’t good enough for prairie dog shooting.