.270 Winchester – Wholesale Hunter

THE UNLOVED .25s

Craig Boddington

Yes, that title will upset some folks. Funny thing about the .25-caliber cartridges, bullet diameter .257-inch: Those who love ‘em tend to be passionate about their “quarter-bores.”. Those who don’t love .25s probably don’t hate them, just ignore them.

This big feral hog dropped in its tracks to a single 100-grain Interlock from a Savage 1899 in .250 Savage. The old .250 Savage isn’t fast, but it’s as effective on deer-sized game today as it was a century ago.

The .25-caliber is a uniquely American bullet diameter, rarely seen in Europe, equally uncommon in Africa. I’m told the .25-06 has some following in South Africa, but I’ve rarely seen a .25 in use on safari.

Over here, the quarter-bores have a rich history, going back to the dawn of smokeless powder. The .25-20 was created by necking down the .32-20 case to .25-caliber, first by Marlin, then by Winchester, and chambered in their popular 1892 lever-action. Initially loaded with blackpowder, the .25-20 quickly transitioned to smokeless. Although occasionally used for deer, the little .25-20 was a common small game and varmint cartridge, popular among trappers.

On a Kansas deer stand with a Winchester M94 .25-35, made in 1906. Because of iron sights, Boddington is careful which stands he chooses, but he does a “sit” or two with this rifle most deer seasons.

Winchester’s .25-35 was the first .25 designed for smokeless powder. The .25-35 and .30-30 use the parent same case, and were introduced together in 1895, so were the first sporting cartridges designed for smokeless propellent. Although hampered by round-nose bullets in tubular magazines, the .25-35 shoots flatter than the .30-30 with a less recoil. The .25-35 was a common alternative to .30-30, plenty of gun for deer-sized game. Jack O’Connor’s outfitter in Sonora in the 1930s, Charlie Ren, used nothing but a Savage 1899 in .25-35. O’Connor famously quoted Ren as saying it was “all he needed.” Lord knows how much game that rifle accounted for.

In 1915, Arthur Savage engaged early cartridge genius Charles Newton to develop a high-velocity cartridge for his lever-action. Newton’s project for Savage resulted in the .250-3000 (.250 Savage), the first commercial cartridge to break 3000 feet per second. The Savage lever-action was stronger than the Winchester, and its box magazine could use sharp-pointed bullets. The .250 Savage was popular for decades…and a real thorn in Winchester’s side.

Gunwriter Gary Sitton was another huge .25-06 fan. He used his Dakota M10 .25-06 to take this fine buck on John Wootters’ South Texas ranch, “Los Cuernos.”

In 1920, Savage introduced the M20. Essentially a scaled-down Springfield action, it was not only America’s first commercial bolt-action; it was the world’s first short bolt-action, sized specifically to the .250 Savage case. In our Kansas deer season just past, Ryan Paul brought a cherry M20 and shot does with it, first M20 I’ve ever seen in the field.

The only way the .250 Savage could reach 3000 fps was with its original light-for-caliber 87-grain bullet. 1915 expanding bullets worked when they worked, but most hunters learned that the .250 Savage performed better with 100-grain bullets at about 2800 fps.

Wyoming gunwriter Bob Milek in the field with one of his beloved .25s. Milek used both the .257 Roberts and .25-06 for game up to elk. Boddington doesn’t believe the .25’s have enough bullet weight or frontal area for larger game, but with proper shot placement, they surely work.

Gunwriter Ned Roberts necked the 7×57 case down to .25-caliber, creating the .257 Roberts, adopted by Remington in 1934. Its longer case enabled heavier bullets at higher velocity than possible with the .250 Savage. Until the .243 came along, the .257 Roberts was the standard “crossover” varmint/big game cartridge. Although rarely chambered in new rifles today, it was extremely popular, and remains an important cartridge.

The .25-06 was developed at Frankford Arsenal during WWI as a military experiment. After the war, it remained a common and popular non-standard wildcat. Amazing to me none of the majors picked it up sooner, but it wasn’t adopted as a commercial cartridge until 1969, as the .25-06 Remington. To this day, the .25-06 is the most popular .25-caliber. With heavier bullets, it is fast, flat-shooting, powerful, and awesome on deer-sized game. With lighter bullets, the .25-06 is probably the largest and most powerful cartridge that could sensibly be used for varminting.

Boddington used his Dakota .257 Roberts with 117-grain SST to take this weird Kansas “management” buck. The buck went down so fast and hard it seemed to bounce.

The .257 Weatherby Magnum was one of Roy Weatherby’s original cartridges, introduced in 1944, based on a necked down and shortened .300 H&H case. It is one of the fastest and flattest-shooting of all commercial cartridges and was Roy’s personal favorite. It’s not especially popular; a limitation is that it has remained a Weatherby proprietary, thus limited sources.

In recent years there have been few new .25-caliber cartridges. An exception was the short-lived .25 WSSM. Great little fireplug of a cartridge, about the same performance as the .25-06, yet from a much shorter case, fitting into short actions. Several of the short, fat magnums introduced at the turn of the millennium have fallen by the wayside. Mostly, I put this down to “too many, too fast.” Too many new cartridges for the market (us) to accept. The “super short” magnums were so short that feeding problems occurred in some platforms.

For the record, I’m not a huge .25-caliber fan but I neither hate them nor ignore them. I have a long history with .25s. In the early ‘70s, on a cougar hunt, the houndsman handed me a Colt Lightning slide-action .25-20. Since then, I’ve hunted with all of them, even tried the .25 WSSM when it was new. I had a super-accurate .25-06, used it a lot, have had a couple of .257 Weatherby Magnums. As a lever-action buff, I’ve had a succession of .250 Savage rifles, have a good one now, made in 1920. Also have a 1906 M94 in .25-35. My current favorite .25, however, is a Dakota M76 in .257 Roberts, accurate and sweet-shooting.

This blacktail was taken with a .257 Weatherby Magnum. By far the fastest commercial .25-caliber, the .257 Wby shoots flat and hits hard.

I admit that I’m not passionate about .25s, but friends that I’ve respected have been. Great gunwriter, friend, and mentor Bob Milek was a quarter-bore guy. He loved the .257 Roberts and .25-06 equally. Gary Sitton, one of our greatest gunwriting talents, was also a .25-06 guy. My longtime boss at Petersen’s HUNTING, Ken Elliott, was a .257 Weatherby Magnum guy, thought it was the cat’s pajamas. So did Robert E. “Pete” Petersen, founder of Petersen Publishing. Sadly, all these guys are gone. Scott Rupp, one of the best Editors I currently work for, is still with us. He’s a quarter-bore guy.

Tastes in cartridges are often somewhat reginal. Usually, this is driven by game hunted, and by local hunting conditions. Texas is the great stronghold of the .25-06. Hard to find a Texas deer camp where somebody isn’t toting a .25-06. Medium-sized deer, shots often on the longer side. More than that: A common landform there is long, open cuts between brushlines, the famous Texas senderos. Here’s the thing about hunting a sendero: They’re narrow with few reference points. When a buck steps out he may not stop for long. No time to mess with a rangefinder, quick look at antlers and shoot. A flat-shooting .25 is a near-perfect choice.

In 2023, Ryan Paul brought a Savage M20 to Kansas, first time Boddington has seen an M20 in the field. An aperture-sight rifle, Paul used it to take does, using a scoped rifle for his buck.

In Central California, we hunt small-bodied blacktail deer. The .25-06 is popular here today, but, historically, I think the .250 Savage was a top gun. I say this because, for years, it was easy to find Savage 99s in .250 on almost any used-gun rack. In the .250 Savage’s heyday, we didn’t yet have feral hogs, and in our tight canyons, shots on our blacktails are rarely long. The .250 Savage was an ideal choice.

For me, the .25s are excellent for pronghorns and deer-sized game, questionable for larger game. Others disagree. Bob Milek used his .257 Roberts or .25-06 for elk almost every year. Milek was a Wyoming resident, usually looking for a fat cow or young bull for the freezer, rarely seeking (or taking) mature bulls. In that context, fine. For all-around elk hunting, I draw the line. Can work just fine, with caution, but I don’t think the .25s offer either the bullet weight or frontal area for general use on game larger than deer.

A nice Central Coast blacktail, taken with a .25-06 on a Ruger M77 action. Accurate and flat-shooting, the .25-06 is the most popular .25-caliber cartridge, a great choice for deer-sized game.

If there’s a fly in the .25-caliber ointment, it’s a bullet problem. Like our traditional .270 cartridges, the .25s have always been considered hunting cartridges. Historically, there have been almost no match-grade bullets or loads in .25-caliber. Today, with the rage for range, little development of modern, low-drag .257 projectiles. As with older .270s, part of this is a rifling twist issue. Since the 1920s, standard rifling twist for .25-caliber cartridges has been 1:10, stabilizing bullets from about 70 to 120 grains. Maximum G1 Ballistic Coefficient (BC) for the most aerodynamic 120-grain .257 bullets is about .400. Not bad, but not in the same league as the modern low-drag bullets with BCs well over .600.

We need longer, heavier .257 bullets to get there, but our 1:10 barrels won’t stabilize them, and many of the actions on our .25-caliber rifles won’t house them. There are some options out there. Berger makes a 133-grain .257 bullet, and Hornady has a new 134-grain .257 ELD-Match with G1 BC of .645. Undoubtedly, these choices will grow. However, none of my .25s will stabilize these bullets. I’m not interested in rebarreling. Same story as my pet .270 Winchesters regarding the new, heavier .277 bullets.

Two different approaches to varmint rifles. Left, a Savage .22-250. Right, a .25-06 on a Ruger M77 action, both with adequate accuracy for any varminting. Boddington believes the .25-06 is the most powerful cartridge that makes sense for varminting.

Doesn’t matter to me. I’m not an extreme-range guy. My .25s shoot well enough and flat enough for my purposes. Happy to keep them in their box as awesome, light-recoiling choices for deer-sized game, at shooting distances I’m comfortable with.

DON’T OVERLOOK THE ‘06

Craig Boddington

A writer friend was in black bear camp this past spring, shooting a .30-06. At the sight-in range, younger hunters gathered to admire his rifle. They’d heard of the .30-06…insisted they’d never seen one.

By about 1930 the .30-06 reigned as America’s most popular hunting cartridge, holding this position for at least 40 years. Times change, but I’m shocked there are grownup hunters who have never seen or given passing consideration to the .30-06.

46 years after his first safari, Boddington still believes the .30-06 is among the best and most versatile choices for Africa’s non-dangerous game. This fine waterbuck was taken in 2019, using a left-hand Ruger M77 with 180-grain Hornady Interlock.

In 1903 the United States military adopted the Springfield bolt-action rifle, mated with a rimless bottleneck cartridge firing a .30-caliber (.308-inch bullet). Rifle and cartridge were so close to Peter Paul Mauser’s designs that Uncle Sam paid Mauser a royalty until WWI. The original 1903 cartridge used a 220-grain round-nose bullet. In 1906 the case was modified slightly, the bullet changed to a lighter spitzer with greatly improved aerodynamics. The new cartridge was called “Caliber .30 US Government Model of 1906.” We soon shortened that to .30-06.

The first sporting use of the .30-06 doesn’t seem recorded. Well-known is that Theodore Roosevelt swore by his Springfield throughout his epic nine-month 1909 safari. At that time the lever-action was America’s most popular sporting rifle. There were no domestic civilian bolt-actions at all until 1920.

.30-06 velocities vary considerably among manufacturers. With 165-grain bullet, Hornady’s Superformance load yielded 3016 fps…that’s edging into .300 magnum velocity.

The Savage M20 was America’s first bolt-action sporter, Sort of a mini-Springfield, it was sized for the short .250 and .300 Savage cartridges and could not house the .30-06. The first American sporter that could was Remington’s M30 in 1921, based on the big 1917 US Enfield action. Winchester followed in 1925 with the M54, forerunner to the M70 (1936).

Shortage of commercial rifles didn’t deter the .30-06. Surplus US Enfields and Springfields were cheap and available. The supply from both world wars lasted through the Sixties. My own first centerfire, purchased in 1964, was a surplus ‘03 Springfield. I think it cost $39.95. I didn’t hunt with it until years later, but I shot it a lot, and lovingly “sporterized” it.

We hear about new cartridges being inherently accurate, but don’t sell the ’06 short. This lightweight Kimber Terminal Ascent produced sub-MOA groups right out of the box with the first load tried, Federal 180-grain Trophy Tip bonded bullet.

Starting in 1925, the flatter-shooting, softer-kicking .270 gave the .30-06 competition but never overtook it. Even Jack O’Connor, high priest of the .270, conceded that the .30-06 was more versatile. The first magnum craze of the Fifties and Sixties eroded the .30-06. I bought into that stuff; I had a .264 and a .300 Winchester Magnum before I hunted with a .30-06.

Although she later switched to a .270, Donna Boddington did most of her early hunting with a left-hand Ruger M77 .30-06. She used a 180-grain Hornady Interlock to drop this excellent Mozambique sable with one shot at sundown.

I read my Roosevelt, and my Hemingway, and my Ruark, so when planning my first African hunt I knew I had to have a .30-06. I trotted down to the PX and bought a Ruger M77 and worked up handloads with 180-grain Nosler Partitions. Even though I’d been a confirmed magnum maniac (“magniac”), I was amazed at how well the .30-06 performed. All ranges, all sizes of plains game. Became, and have remained, a .30-06 fan.

The flood of unbelted magnums at the turn of the millennium gave us new choices. Recent cartridges designed for maximum efficiency (PRCs, Noslers, Westerns) give us more options. Today we have plenty cartridges to choose from. It’s easy to overlook the .30-06.

The .30-06 probably isn’t an ideal mountain cartridge, but it shoots flat enough. Grancel Fitz took his first sheep, a Dall sheep in Alaska, in 1935 with his Griffin & Howe Springfield. 20 years later, he was the first person to take all varieties of North American big game…all with this same .30-06.

Old, but not tired. The .30-06 is a powerhouse. Standard issue for our forces for 50 years, the .30-06 is the most powerful cartridge adopted by a major military. Not as fast as our many magnums, it is not slow. Standard velocity for a 180-grain bullet is 2700 fps. In perspective: The same speed as the 6.5mm Creedmoor…with a 140-grain bullet. With 180-grain bullet, the .30-06 offers 28 percent more bullet weight…with .044-inch more frontal area. There is no comparison in hitting power.

Wife Donna did her early hunting with a Ruger M77 .30-06. Not the same one. I was doing a lot of hunting with a left-hand action M77 .30-06. Also a lefty, she’s shorter, so I took a sliver off the butt and reset the recoil pad so we could both shoot it comfortably.

Sadly, not all new rifles are chambered to .30-06. This is Chapuis’ new ROLS straight-pull, made in France…with .30-06 among its many chamberings. So far, out of the box accuracy is about one MOA…not unusual for good rifles in .30-06.

Now, let’s be clear. The .30-06 is not a low-recoil option. Generations of recruits complained about the brutal recoil. They were not wrong. Donna is one of those people who is uniquely impervious to recoil. In general, I don’t recommend the .30-06 for youngsters, for women of smaller stature, or for anyone with aversion to recoil.

To this day, the (nominally) 2.5-inch of the .30-06 defines “standard-length” actions and cartridges. Factory cartridges based on the ’06 case include, left to right: .30-06, .270 Win, .280 Rem, .25-06, .35 Whelen, .370 Federal, .280 AI. Boddington believes the .30-06 is still the most versatile of all.

The .30-06 is a big gun, needlessly powerful for any deer hunting. It is a far better elk cartridge than deer cartridge! I still have magniac tendencies. I see the medium magnums, typified by the .338 Winchester Magnum, as the most ideal elk cartridges. Yes, but the .30-06 is plenty of gun for any elk, especially with today’s great bullets. I’ve taken as many bull elk with the .30-06 as with magnums. None have gone farther, most down in their tracks. Because of heavier bullets with more frontal area, I think the .30-06 is more effective on elk than any of the 7mms.

One of the advantages to the .30-06 is lots of loads…and lots of handload recipes. This Savage 110 .30-06 grouped variously with different loads…and then shot quarter-inch groups (bottom center) with Federal factory with 180-grain Barnes.

The .30-06’s strongest suit is versatility. Awesome for larger game, such as elk and moose. I still can’t think of anything better for the full run of non-dangerous African game. The .30-06 kicks but lacks the bone-jarring recoil velocity of the fast magnums…and it works.

Versatility isn’t just about size of animals. Today’s newest cartridges use faster rifling twists with extra-heavy bullets with super aerodynamics. The .30-06’s traditional 1:10 twist stabilizes bullets from 150 to 220 grains. How much versatility do you need? For deer, a 150-grain bullet zips along at 3000 fps. For elk, and for Africa’s variety, I’ve always been a 180-grain bullet guy. I’m not keen on using the .30-06 for big bears, but more grizzlies and brown bears have fallen to the .30-06 than all the rest put together. Old-timers relied on the long, heavy 220-grain slug, which can be loaded to 2550 fps, credible velocity for such weight, offering wonderful penetration. I also don’t recommend the .30-06 for extra-large beasts. However, in the days before minimum legal calibers, the .30-06 with 220-grain solids had a great reputation for reliable penetration all the way up to elephant.

The .30-06 is probably needlessly powerful for deer…and also dramatically effective. This big Colorado buck was dropped in its tracks by a single 180-grain Fusion bullet from an ’06 made by Kenny Jarrett.

Maybe it’s also not the best choice for mountain game. As with deer, .30-caliber bullet weight and power aren’t essential for sheep and goats. I’ve taken both with the .30-06, but I’ve usually chosen cartridges that shoot flatter. Not because I needed them, but because they seemed a better “fit.” Once you get to the point where you must either hold over or start dialing your turret for range, trajectory is just a number. Know the number and you can solve the problem.

I’ve done a lot of 1000-yard shooting on steel with various .30-06 rifles and loads…as have long-range competitors for 120 years. Once you start adjusting, a few more clicks is a matter of knowing how many. I’m not an extreme range shooter on game. If I were, then there are better tools. However, because that’s what I was carrying—and because I knew the trajectory—I’ve made some of my longer shots in the field with the .30-06.

Boddington believes the .30-06 is a wonderful elk cartridge…and better for elk than deer. This bull dropped in its tracks to a single 180-grain Barnes TSX at about 150 yards.

Many of our newer cartridges offer great versatility on game, at varying levels of recoil, and are often touted for accuracy. Cartridge design matters, but rifle, barrel, and ammo are more important. It’s an article of faith that the .308, with its shorter, more efficient case, is more accurate. Maybe, but the margin is slim. I’ve rarely seen accuracy problems in a .30-06 rifle. With higher velocity, the .30-06 is more powerful, thus more versatile.

So many choices, so many conflicting and confusing cartridges. Here’s one good reason why the .30-06 may be worth your consideration. Availability. Everybody loads .30-06. It is no longer our most popular centerfire…but it’s still in the top handful. There are hundreds of factory loads, from all manufacturers, throughout the world…offered with just about any bullet you can think of. No, these days, we can’t get them all. But the .30-06 is not a one-company wonder, as new cartridges must be until they catch on. For handloaders, we have a century of loading data to fall back on. Can’t get this powder or that bullet? Plenty of choices.

Willem van Dyk, trackers, and Boddington with a big fringe-eared oryx, taken in Kenya in 1977 on Boddington’s first African hunt. This was the first time Boddington hunted with the .30-06; impressive performance made him a lifelong fan.

Just yesterday, I went to the range with a new Chapuis ROLS, a fine, state-of-the-art straight-pull rifle. Made in France…chambered to .30-06. Finding the best load for this rifle is still a work in progress, but the loads I grabbed randomly from my garage grouped within one MOA. That’s performance I expect—and usually get—from a good .30-06.

Not all great new rifles are chambered in .30-06. I suppose that’s a sign of the times. Explains why some younger folks consider it a curiosity. For sure, it’s not as sexy as the hot new numbers. It’s still an accurate, powerful, and versatile choice. And the .30-06 is still out there, hundreds of loads, jillions of rifles…of all vintages.

THOUGHTS ON RECOIL

I was just hunting Cape buffalo in Mozambique with buddy Gordon Marsh, proprietor of this site. Gordon brought his CZ 550, chambered to the huge .500 Jeffery. Propelling a 535-grain bullet at over 2500 fps, the .500 Jeffery was long our most powerful sporting cartridge.

Craig Boddington

Boddington is flanked by great gunwriters Gary Sitton and John Wootters, both now gone. Wootters lost the sight in his right eye due to a detached retina. Although it didn’t happen while shooting, he came to believe that heavy recoil may have cumulative effect and increase the risk of detached retina.

Surpassed in 1957 by the .460 Weatherby, the .500 Jeffery, yields over 7000 foot-pounds, a real powerhouse. It and the .460 are among few cartridges that, with ideal shot placement, might drop a Cape buffalo…and keep him down. Gordon proved this on his bull.

He also proved he’s one tough SOB. He suffered two severe scope cuts and had his front scope mount loosen under recoil. Gordon put the rifle (and himself) back together, re-zeroed, shot a one-inch group, then went on to flatten his buffalo and shoot a hippo.

Prone is one of the worst positions for recoil; the body has nowhere to go, plus the head must be cocked forward, increasing chances for scope cuts. This scope has plenty of eye relief, so it’s not going to hit him

Recoil is the embodiment of Newton’s Third Law of physics: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” The action is the projectile traveling down the bore; opposite is recoil, in which the firearm becomes the projectile.

Proper stock fit matters greatly, and there are actually two primary factors to recoil: Energy and velocity. In the US, we speak of recoil energy in foot-pounds, and recoil velocity in feet per second. Because of the force required to move a heavy firearm, both are much lower than projectile energy and velocity. Fast magnums and light rifles seem to hit us faster…because they do. This is why cartridges that are large, powerful, and fast, such as .338 Lapua Magnum and .378 Weatherby Magnum, seem to produce especially violent recoil. They hit hard and fast, on both ends.

Slower big-bore cartridges, such as .458 Win Mag and all the old Nitro Express rounds, at around 2150 fps, produce lower recoil than cartridges like the .500 Jeffery and .460 Weatherby, which are 20 percent faster. At these levels, we’re splitting hairs between recoil velocity and energy; the effect is brutal.

Boddington takes a serious bash with a .700 Nitro Express from Bill Jones’ collection. This is more than 150 ft-lbs of recoil, note the “catch team” in case he loses control of the valuable rifle. Boddington no longer does this kind of thing for fun.

Thanks to the Internet, actual recoil figures are at our fingertips. Some examples for comparison: A 7.5 pound .243 with 100-grain bullet produces about nine ft-lbs of recoil energy. No problem, right? A 6.5 Creedmoor kicks about a dozen ft-lbs, a .270 Winchester in the upper teens. An eight-pound .30-06 with 180-grain bullet kicks just over 20 ft-lbs, while a .300 Wby Mag goes up a third, over 30 ft-lbs.

This .375 Wby Mag was fine in the states in winter with a jacket on, but needed a bit more eye relief in shirtsleeves in Cameroon. After multiple scope cuts Boddington gave up and removed the scope and used iron sights, the only time he has ever traded a functioning scope for irons.

More powerful rifles are usually heavier. This is a good thing, because sheer gun weight is always the easiest way to mitigate recoil. A nine-pound .375 H&H will stay below 40 ft-lbs. With practice, most shooters can learn to handle this level. The .378 Wby Mag jumps to over 70 ft-lbs of recoil. At 11 pounds, my double .470 kicks in the high 60s. With similar bullet weight at higher velocity, the .460 Wby and .500 Jeffery reach 100 ft-lbs, a lot of kick…for anyone.

A good shock-absorbing recoil pad helps a lot, but adding gun weight is often the simplest way to reduce recoil. The Break-O mercury recoil reducer adds weight, plus the heavy mercury acts as a piston under recoil, slowing the impulse.

I used to think I was impervious to recoil. I was wrong! Some years back I had a .600 Nitro Express “double” on me while shooting an elephant. Not my rifle, so I don’t know if it was a malfunction that fired both barrels when I pressed the front trigger. Or, if, after firing the first barrel, recoil caused me to inadvertently hit the rear trigger. Doesn’t matter, 300 ft-lbs of recoil, no desire to shoot it again to find out. The elephant dropped. So did I. I was briefly stunned, sore for a few days, but no apparent damage until, weeks later, I lost a major tendon in that shoulder.

Possibly repairable if I were a pro athlete, not worth it for me. No residual pain, no loss of motion. But I can’t risk drawing a bow on that side, and I take more care in the recoil I subject myself to. At that time, I’d already started to ration recoil, but for an entirely different reason: Risk of detached retina.

Boddington and Bill Jones with the only buffalo Boddington has taken with the .500 Jeffery. From Jones’ collection, this famous rifle belonged to Fletcher Jameson. Effect was devastating, but Boddington decided this is too much recoil.

John Wootters was our star writer when I was Editor of Petersen’s HUNTING magazine, an invaluable mentor. John suffered a detached retina while on the NRA’s “Great American Hunters” speaking tour. He didn’t get to an eye surgeon quick enough and lost sight in his right eye, transitioning to left-hand shooting in his 60s.

Wootters did a lot of research. Severe recoil can contribute to detached retina. My old friend Bert Klineburger experienced a detached retina while checking zero on his .460 Weatherby in Central Africa. He knew what had happened, caught a plane to Paris, got it repaired, and hunted for another 30 years. Wootters came to believe that recoil effect can be cumulative: After untold thousands of 12-gauge, shells, veteran competitive shotgunners frequently experience it. And, all too many older gunwriters have suffered detached retinas.

The .470 produces about 68 ft-lbs of recoil. That’s plenty, but the other three are much faster and kick at about 100 ft-lbs, an awful lot of recoil. Despite shorter case, the .500 Jeffery is loaded a bit hotter and is slightly more powerful than the huge .505 Gibbs.

Scared by Wootters’ experience and trusting his research, by the time that .600 doubled, I’d slowed down, avoiding shooting big guns for fun. Mind you, I still believe in the right gun for the job at hand. Usually, I find myself well above minimums, but I avoid maximums.

Gordon Marsh at the bench in Mozambique, checking zero on his CZ 550 in the mighty .500 Jeffery. The bench is one of the worst positions for felt recoil because the body has little give.

I shot exactly one buffalo with a .500 Jeffery. It was Fletcher Jameson’s famous rifle, featured in John Taylor’s African Rifles and Cartridges, and part of Bill Jones’ collection. Quartering-to, aiming for the point of the on-shoulder, the first shot slammed the bull down so hard that my PH and I agreed I must have hit too high. Likely to get back up, better hit him again. No further reaction, so I worked the bolt and we advanced. Halfway there, I realized my left (shooting) arm was completely numb from shoulder to wrist. Good thing the bull was dead; no way could I have fired again! This was just a year after my shoulder got ruined, so I don’t know if this was residual effect, or if the .500 Jeffery is too much gun for me.

Donna Boddington on sticks, watching a pig trail into a vineyard. Note the clearance between cap bill and ocular lens; almost impossible for the scope to hit her.

Either way, I have no intention to find out! We all have different recoil “thresholds” that we can withstand without ill effect, and without acquiring hard-to-cure bad habits…like flinching. Everybody is different, and experience counts, but we all have recoil limits that we exceed only at peril. Trust me, it’s not a matter of toughness or male machismo. Obviously, a youngster or 110-pound woman is likely to withstand less recoil than a 220-pound man. However, this is not locked in stone. Everybody is different, so in my experience it’s more of a nervous system tolerance. There is no formula for “how much is too much,” but this I know: When you push yourself to uncomfortable recoil, accuracy will suffer.

Muzzle brakes are extremely effective for reducing recoil and generally have no impact on accuracy. They work, but Boddington avoids them for hunting because of the increased muzzle blast.

There are options. Muzzle brakes work. Systems vary, depending on how the gas is vented, but at least 40 percent recoil attenuation can be reached. That said, I no longer have any rifles with muzzle brakes, because of increased blast. My thinking: I’m already deaf enough! I carry Walker Game Ears while hunting, but I know that, sooner or later, I’m going to forget to put them on. Also, I hunt a lot in Africa, where trackers and PHs are close by. I don’t want to blow out their ears so, despite unquestionable benefit, I avoid muzzle brakes. If a rifle kicks so hard that I can’t handle it, I’ll add lead in the butt and fore-end channel, or mercury recoil reducers. If that doesn’t work, time to drop down to a lighter cartridge. While this is my answer, hunters who hunt primarily alone may be well-served by modern brakes.

The worst scope cut Boddington ever got was on this Nevada mule deer, shooting a very familiar .30-06 from a hasty prone position across a canyon at long range. It happens, usually more a matter of hasty or weird shooting position than too much recoil

I mentioned Gordon’s scope cuts, accepted with sheepish grins. Sooner or later, most of us get them. Usually, it isn’t a matter of excessive recoil, but weird shooting positions. The worst scope cut I ever got was from a familiar .30-06. I lay prone on a rimrock for a cross-canyon shot, got the buck…and a nasty cut. Prone is bad, but any hasty position is suspect.

Adequate eye relief is critical, and a bit extra helps. In 2004 I took a .375 Wby Mag to northern Cameroon. Shot great on my range, wearing a light jacket in our mild winter. In shirtsleeves in Equatorial Africa, I couldn’t stay away from the scope, deeper cut with every shot. Most unpleasant. At the tail end of the safari, I gave up. This was the only time I’ve removed a functional scope in favor of iron sights.

Brittany Boddington instructing shooting off sticks at one of her She Hunts skills camps. Women aren’t particularly sensitive to recoil, but don’t like scope cuts. Brittany’s trick is to wear a baseball cap. If the hat brim clears the ocular bell, then there’s enough eye relief to make a scope cut highly unlikely.

Women usually have higher pain thresholds than men, but are less jocular about facial scars. Daughter Brittany has a great trick she shows the ladies at her “She Hunts” skills camps. Wear a baseball cap. If the forward edge of the brim clears the rear of the ocular lens, then a scope cut is highly unlikely.

For me, I still shoot big guns when and as I need to. This means I practice with them, but at the range I wear a PAST “Recoil Shield.” I still believe in the adage to “use enough gun,” usually with power to spare. But I’m not as tough as Gordon Marsh. I no longer shoot big guns for fun!

WHY LEFT-HAND GUNS MATTER

Craig Boddington

If you’re of the right-handed majority, they probably don’t matter much to you at all, but I want you bear with me and give this some thought.

One of my all-time favorite “crazy” letters went something like this: “Boddington, I’m sick of hearing you whine about scarcity of left-handed firearms. You should blame your mother; she should have made you right-handed like normal people…I can assure you, if you were born in Germany in the 1930s you’d be shooting right-handed.”

Any question about which eye is dominant? Perform this simple test, sighting on a small object and closing one eye, then the other. At 65, left-handed and long left-eye dominant Boddington was shocked to learn that his eye dominance had shifted to the right eye!

Nobody knows the exact percentage of left-handed people, but we’re a small minority, estimated between 10 and maximum 15 percent. Not all manufacturers offer left-handed models. Most that do offer limited variations and chamberings but, compared to when I was young, today there’s a pretty good selection. Honest, if were a firearms manufacturer, I’m not certain I’d tool up for the left-handed market. Partly because it’s small, and also because many lefties don’t buy left-handed guns. They make do with right-handed guns…like always.

For centuries, lefties were forced to be right-handed, too awkward for tactics with swords and shields. I’m not sure when our military allowed left-handed shooters, but I trained as a lefty 50 years ago. Whether you consider preference for the southpaw side natural or an abomination, there are other considerations.

: Veteran gunwriter John Wootters and Boddington with a nice Rio Grande turkey gobbler. Lifelong right-hander Wootters lost his right eye to a detached retina. He successfully made the shift to left-handed shooting but, in his 60s then, it wasn’t easy.

In addition to physically favoring one side, most humans have a stronger or dominant eye. Unlike many activities that rely heavily on our binocular vision, shooting (especially with sights), requires aiming with just one eye. For most people, it’s easier to learn to shoot with the dominant eye. Eye dominance often follows hand preference…but not always. As toddlers, we announce “handedness” by reaching for toys and spoons with one hand or the other. This may be established before eye dominance is determined.

Handgunning is different. Almost all semiautos eject to the right, not a problem at arms’ length, and revolvers are ambidextrous. That arms’ length distance also offers multiple options for solving cross-eye dominance.

Cross-eye dominance (right-handed, but with left eye dominant; or vice-versa) is not uncommon. Interestingly, cross-eye dominance is more common among women than men, with some studies showing a significant percentage of cross-eye dominance in females. Not a problem in many sports, but a big deal in archery and shooting. Especially today, with women forming the fastest-growing segments in almost all shooting sports.

So, you are right-handed and right-eye dominant. You don’t care. Fine, but as the kids and ladies in your life learn to shoot, are you sure they’re starting out on the proper side? There are simple remedies to improve shooting with cross-eye dominance but, from learning to shoot is faster with the dominant eye. The shooting shoulder and trigger hand should be on that side.

TESTING EYE DOMINANCE

Easiest thing in the world. In a large room, pick out a small object like a light switch. Stand with arms outstretched, palms away. Bring your hands together, overlapping fingers and thumbs so that you create a small hole between the webs of your thumbs. Focus on the object through the hole and close one eye. If the object remains stationary, your open eye is dominant. Without moving your head, close both eyes and open the other eye. The object should jump, either out of view behind your hand or to the side. That is not your dominant eye!

Springfield LH conversion: Before LH actions were common, bolt-actions were often converted, switching the bolt handle and reversing bolt rotation. This is a converted Springfield by R.F. Sedgely, fast to operate, but the shooter’s face remains in peril if there’s a catastrophic failure. Mirror-image actions that eject to the left are much safer!

Stuff happens. I’ve been left-handed and left-eye dominant most of my life, but our eyes change as we age. About five years ago, I started having trouble resolving iron sights and shotgun ribs. Worse than that: I was clearly seeing two front sights and front beads. I was shocked to discover my eye dominance had shifted from left to right…no wonder I was having trouble! Prescription shooting glasses have mostly fixed the problem so, no, I’m not switching from left to right, too much muscle memory and too many left-handed guns.

Injuries are impartial. Forty years ago, when lefty actions where scarce, I bought two of my first from a lefty in the local Safari Club who had lost his left eye and needed to switch sides. John Wootters, great gunwriter and friend, was right-handed all his life…until he lost sight in his right eye to detached retina. In his 60s, the transition to left-hand shooting wasn’t easy, but it can be done. Likewise, injuries to the strong-side hand, arm, or shoulder can force shooters to switch.

Ruger No. One buffalo: Cartridge selection is a problem with most left-hand rifles. The Ruger No. One has been chambered to more cartridges than any other factory rifle, and is totally ambidextrous. Left-handed Donna Boddington used a No. One in .450/.400-3” to take this awesome Zimbabwe buffalo.

A MATTER OF SAFETY

Most right-handers probably believe that left-handed guns are for convenience or speed. Suck it up, right? No. It’s really a matter of safety. It is a right-handed world, so most repeating actions are designed to eject to the right. And, in the case of a catastrophic failure, like a ruptured case head, the hot gases and shrapnel are directed to the right, away from the right-handed shooter’s face and eyes.

Now, put that right-hand-ejecting longarm on the left shoulder and experience the same catastrophe. Now the bad stuff is vented straight into the shooter’s face; serious injury is almost unavoidable.

Rock River LH AR: Boddington taking a field rest for prairie dogs with a mirror-image AR from Rock River. There are now several manufacturers offering left-hand ARs, far the safest and most pleasant-shooting for lefties.

Many firearms are more or less ambidextrous in operation, including most lever-actions, pumps, and semiautos. However, if ejection is to the right side, the same safety hazard exists. And, vice versa, it also exists in the rarer cases of right-handers shooting mirror-image left-hand firearms.

There are truly ambidextrous actions. All break-open actions, most single-shots, and top-eject lever-actions are even-handed, and bottom-ejecting slide-actions and semiautos are totally ambidextrous. Placement of the mechanical safety can be awkward for lefties. Tang safeties work both ways, and most push-button safeties can be reversed, but this is convenience and training; the safety issue comes from being on the wrong side of the action if something goes badly wrong.

Whether falling block or break-open, almost all single-shots are very ambidextrous. This is Uberti’s Courteney stalking rifle in .303 British, on John Browning’s patent.

This is primarily an issue with long guns, because the shooter’s head is close to the action. Revolvers are ambidextrous, and virtually all semiauto pistols eject to the right. Neither are a concern because handguns are fired from arms’ length.

So, how real is the danger? Remote, but it only takes once. I’ve seen five blowups in my life, mostly on ranges, people I didn’t know, thus from unknown causes. Four resulted in minor injuries…because they were right-handed and shooting right-handed guns. All would have been more serious if experienced by a lefty. The fifth was mine, a right-handed bolt-action, shot from the left shoulder. It was a .270 WSM, and there was a 7mm WSM cartridge in the box. Shouldn’t have chambered, but it did. And fired, swaging a .284-inch bullet down a .277-inch bore. The case head let go, and all the bad stuff came out the right side…like it’s supposed to. I was wearing shooting glasses, so minimal damage, burns and brass fragments on the right side of my nose and a red raccoon ring around my right lens. Absent eye protection, could have been bad!

Savage has long been a stalwart in offering left-hand options, especially in their M110 bolt-action line. This Colorado bull was taken with a Savage 110 in .30-06, one shot and done.

Look, I’m a gunwriter. Catastrophic failures are unusual, uncommon, unlikely. Of course, I shoot right-handed guns off my left shoulder. Good eye protection (and maybe a bit more caution in inspecting ammo) mitigates the risk, but it should not be altogether ignored. Wife Donna is also left-handed and (still) left-eye-dominant. Our personal guns are mirror-image left hand or ambidextrous. She doesn’t do this stuff for a living, so her exposure to right-hand long guns is minimal. The kids are all right-handed and have their own right-handed guns. They can also shoot my “almost ambidextrous” right-hand-eject guns, but they don’t shoot our mirror-image guns from the wrong side.

A friend was a dental surgeon, left-handed and commonly shooting right-hand bolt-actions (like so many lefties). Figuring his hands and right eye were worth a lot more than mine, I convinced him to switch to left-hand actions. I try to do the same with friends who have left-handed kids coming up, usually with success. Give it just a little of thought, and it makes sense: Why accept any unnecessary risk?

In recent years, Ruger has become a strong bastion for left-hand shooters. This left-hand 10/22 is the first-ever mirror-image left-hand semiauto .22.

I don’t actually whine about availability of true, safe-as-can-be left-hand guns, because there are so many more than ever before. In the old days, it was common to switch bolt handles and reverse rotation on bolt-actions. This simplified and speeded operation, but did nothing about the safety issue. Today we have mirror-image bolt-actions from Browning, CZ, Ruger, Savage, Weatherby, and more. John Browning’s bottom-eject slide-action shotgun has been around for a century, variously manufactured by Browning, Ithaca, and Remington. Benelli, Franchi, and Winchester offer mirror-image semiauto shotguns. Ruger now has a mirror-image left-hand 10/22, and Browning still offers the bottom-eject SA22, another John Browning design. There are break-open and falling-block single-shots, and plenty of break open doubles (over-under and side-by-side). Heck, there are even several options for mirror-image ARs. Truly ambidextrous lever-actions are scarce, as are classic control-round-feed bolt-actions, certainly on an affordable basis, but the selection is there.

So far, none of our grand-kids have turned up left-handed, and we haven’t identified cross-eye dominance. Odds are, we’ll have to cross one of those bridges. If we do, and they show interest in shooting, this is the selection of safe and sensible firearms for them. It’s not all that bad!

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!

RIFLE ACCURACY WITH DIFFERENT LOADS By Craig Boddington

Today’s factory rifles are, on average, more accurate than I thought possible when I started shooting. American hunters and rifle shooters have long been obsessed with raw rifle accuracy, probably more today than ever before because of the growing fascination with long-range shooting. How much accuracy is really needed depends entirely on what you intend to do. Bench-rest and thousand-yard competitors need all they can get, and so do varmint hunters. Most big-game hunters probably have more accuracy than is truly necessary—but it’s a wonderful confidence builder to know that your rifle is capable of producing teeny, tiny groups!

257 Roberts group: There’s no telling exactly what load a given rifle will shoot best…and it may not be the load you prefer to use. So far, Boddington’s Dakota .257 Roberts produces its best groups with Remington 100-grain round-nose Core-Lokt, not the most ideal hunting load for a flat-shooting cartridge. This rifle needs handloading and will get it!

That’s a valid reason to demand extreme accuracy—and it’s amazing how many of today’s basic, inexpensive factory rifles deliver. I think this is because, with modern manufacturing, factory tolerances are tighter than ever, with more consistent barrels. When I was a kid, we figured a factory bolt-action that produced 1.5-inch 100-yard groups was pretty darned good. Rifles shooting one inch and better were cause for bragging. Today it’s amazing how many factory bolt guns retailing for less than $500 will consistently produce one-inch 100-yard groups.

.270 versus 7mm: Too close to call!

Caliber .270, bullet diameter .277-inch, is primarily an American phenomenon based on the .270 Winchester, which was introduced in 1925. Its origin is murky; there was an experimental 6.8mm Mauser developed for China so rare that standard references show no photos. No evidence confirms that Winchester was even aware of this obscure cartridge.

Jack O'Connor ram 270 Winchester — Jack O’Connor with one of his last rams, taken with his famous Biesen-stocked “No. 2” .270. O’Connor was the undisputed champion of the .270 Winchester, but from the standpoint of years I have to agree he was right!

Nobody knows for sure why Winchester’s Roaring Twenties engineers settled on that bullet diameter. They probably wanted something based on the .30-06 case that might shoot flatter, kick less, and be almost as versatile. There were other options; both the 6.5mm and 7mm (.264 and .284-inch) bullet diameters were popular in Europe and making inroads in the United States, but in xenophobic post-WWI America, using a “European” diameter might have been out of the question. Continue reading “.270 versus 7mm: Too close to call!”