Traveling with firearms is usually not a problem… until it is.

Traveling with sporting firearms isn’t getting any easier. On the one hand, this is understandable; ours is a strange world these days, and people are nervous. On the other hand, although some airlines and airports have unique rules, the basics haven’t changed. Follow the rules, have the paperwork, allow plenty of time, and you shouldn’t have trouble.

Within the United States the basics are the same: Your firearms must be unloaded, and, if possible, disassembled. These days, we add trigger locks. Firearms and ammunition should be separated, and firearms should be in a secure hard case with all the lock holes filled with locks. Ammunition may be in checked bags, no more than five kilograms (eleven pounds). In Europe and within South Africa, a separate ammo case must be locked and checked separately.

Airline rules can change, however, and not all carriers allow firearms. Check the websites carefully or use a gun-savvy travel agent. Within the U.S., New York City’s airports are problematic: When checking in and out, the Port Authority must inspect firearms. Theoretically transit is OK, but recently there have been checked gun cases pulled for inspection. If possible, it’s best to simply avoid JFK or La Guardia if you are traveling with firearms. If it’s unavoidable, have your ducks in a row and allow plenty of time.

There really isn’t much paperwork required, but you better have it and know the rules. In Italy we had our consular permits, easily obtained. 

International destinations vary. Some airlines refuse to transit firearms through the U.K. Again, it’s theoretically possible, but best to avoid. Always consider the “what-ifs,” such as delayed or cancelled flights. Gun-friendly connections in Europe include Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Paris; in Asia, Dubai and Istanbul. Some of these airports require advance police clearance. I’ve done this in Amsterdam and Dubai; their systems work, but this is another step that takes planning and time.

Ticket agents have every right to determine whether you will be allowed to transit and will be allowed entry at your final destination. So, where possible (and for sure where required) insist on having your permits e-mailed to you before departure. Print them and have them ready. In many key destinations, including Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, you get your gun permit on arrival—but you can print and fill out the form before you go and have it ready. If you run into a problem, keep your cool. Take as many deep breaths as necessary to stay polite, and ask for a supervisor. Above all, ensure you allow plenty of time to check in and plenty of time for connections. Two hours is minimal, and three is much safer.

Little of this is new, but it’s good advice, so I’m still wondering why I didn’t take it on my last trip! The more complex your itinerary, the more chances for error,  which is how I nearly got into trouble this last go-around. Donna and I had planned two back-to-back hunts in Europe, first a roebuck hunt in Italy for both of us, then an ibex hunt in Spain, with only Donna hunting. After Spain she was going home and I was going on to Mozambique. All three outfitters have good rifles available, but we opted to take our own. In Mozambique the actual permit is issued on arrival, but your outfitter needs the details in advance. Italy and Spain have similar rules: Their consulates gather info (invitation letters, firearms specifics, passport photo, current U.S.  hunting license, etc.) and issue authorization.

Although foreigners hunting in Italy is new, their Consulate was responsive and efficient; we had Italian temporary permits in less than a week. Spain has the largest outfitting industry in Europe, so the process should be routine, but our nearest Spanish Consulate (in Los Angeles) ignored both phone calls and e-mails until it was too late. Our Spanish outfitter, Pablo Carol, told us such things have happened before. The police might issue permits on arrival; the worst case scenario was they would keep our firearms locked up until we departed. Note: I do not recommend traveling with firearms without full clearance, but at this point we were stuck, so took our chances.

The Italian authorities at the Rome airport were wonderful; in five minutes we were on our way with sincere wishes for good hunting. Spain’s Guardia Civil was also wonderful. We brought all the paperwork for the consular permits, and they almost issued them, but it was late and an officer with enough rank wasn’t present. We could come back the next day, or they would keep our firearms until departure. Rather than lose a full day of hunting, we chose the latter option and Donna shot her ibex with a borrowed rifle.

In Spain Donna obviously did fine with a borrowed rifle, in this case a very heavy .338 Lapua. Donna isn’t very tall; borrowed rifles are usually too long in the stock, so she always prefers to bring a rifle that fits…but sometimes there’s no choice.

Back at the Madrid airport, we collected our gun cases and ammo with no problems. Donna made her midday flight to the States, and I had an evening flight on Iberian Airlines to Johannesburg connecting onward to Beira on South African Airways. And that’s where the real trouble started.

Iberian Airlines refused to check my bags onward to Beira. In part it was a travel agent error, with the Iberian and SAA tickets not properly linked. But it was more than that, in that Iberian maintained they had no baggage forwarding agreement with SAA—even though I had it in the fine print on my itinerary. They further maintained that firearms could not be transferred, only checked point-to-point. This is not true, but no amount of discussion would sway them. Rather than keep trying and wind up getting arrested, I took my deep breaths and accepted my fate: I was going to South Africa, even though that was not my final destination.

Here’s where complacency compounded the error. I’ve gone “in transit” through Johannesburg’s O.R. Tambo airport many times. I know the drill and how long it takes, so I had allowed a tight connection of just 90 minutes, much shorter than I recommend. It should have been fine, but now I had to enter South Africa, collect my bags, get a temporary South African permit, recheck at SAA, and exit South Africa. There was virtually no chance I’d make my flight to Beira. I did have all necessary phone numbers. I called my Mozambique outfitter, Mark Haldane, and told him I was likely to miss the Beira flight and thus the charter from Beira to camp. Turns out he had been in Johannesburg and would also be on the Beira flight. I called travel agent Barb Wollbrink several times. She was unable to fix the Iberian problem, but she called Henry Durrheim of Rifle Permits in Johannesburg. The South African gun permit process is simple and I often do it myself, but with time so critical, I’d have a better chance with a permit service.

Recognizing the upcoming hassles and unnecessary costs, this was probably the most stressful flight I’ve ever made, but we left Madrid precisely on time. With long flights this often means an early arrival; we landed a half-hour early, so now there was a chance! I was quick off the plane, but the immigration line was long. My duffel was on the carousel when I got there; I threw it on the trolley and trotted for the exit. One of Henry’s folks was waiting, so we dashed to the police office, where my rifle and ammo cases were waiting. October is past peak safari season and nobody else needed a permit. I filled out the form, secured the permit, and we headed for the SAA desks.

Haldane was at the gate and we were exchanging progress reports—the Beira flight was delayed ten minutes. This just might work!

At SAA I got much-needed help: The young ticket agent told me that she didn’t think I could make the flight…but she was willing to try. “Sir, can you run?”

Oh, yes! First to the police kiosk, drop the rifle and ammo, then to the security line. Amazingly, that young ticket agent met me there and steered me through diplomatic clearance! Saying, “Sir, now we must run,” she grabbed my computer bag and took off on ridiculously long legs.

Huffing and puffing, I managed to keep her in sight…barely! The bank of gates for most African flights is down a long set of stairs flanked by up/down escalators. The young lady hit the crowded down escalator. I hit the stairs and passed her…just as they were calling my name on the loudspeaker. I shouted my name and spotted the gate as I flew down the stairs. The boarding area was empty, the bus outside full—but Haldane was at the door, chatting up the gate agents, a delaying action that probably kept those doors open for extra moments.

Amazingly, all my luggage arrived on the plane with me. Clearance in Beira was no problem and the charter flight was waiting. Before noon the next day I shot a fine old buffalo bull, so I guess I had the last laugh!

I will never travel on Iberian Airlines again. However, in retrospect, my travel agent was trying to save me money, so I accepted a risky itinerary. I know better, so it was really my fault. An extra overnight in Johannesburg, a new charter flight, and the loss of at least one hunting day would have been costlier. Delays happen anyway; so long as you have communications it’s always possible to “make a new plan”—but with all international travel, and especially with firearms, it’s wise to play the “what if?” game.

Just the day before I lost an all-day battle with Iberian Airlines and had to enter South Africa, get a gun permit, and recheck onward to Mozambique. Against major odds it worked, I made the flight, and early the first morning took a fine old buffalo. I got the last laugh—I guess—but it was much too close.

Leave a Comment

Our featured Trophy Property for November is the Ford Creek Guest Ranch in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to own a 4 acre parcel at the confluence of the Bob Marshall Wilderness (1.5 million acres) and the Scapegoat Wilderness (240,000 acres).  And if access to that much public land isn’t enough to whet your appetite, consider this: you won’t have another neighbor for 2 miles in any direction.

Since 1955 Ford Creek Outfitters have offered fair chase game hunting experiences for Elk, Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat, and Mountain Lion—with Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young Bulls and Bucks taken regularly.

This property includes the most powerful USFS Resort/Special Permit package in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex encompassing 350 square miles of premium trophy hunting area.

This is an honest to goodness turnkey business opportunity, including all outfitting and lodging equipment, stock and tack to operate.

For more information about this property, and other Trophy Properties, visit www.sportsafieldtrophyproperties.com

Leave a Comment

What’s the best time of year to plan a hunt for a black or brown bear?

I just got back from a September bear hunt in New Brunswick. For a Westerner there’s a lot of good bear hunting much closer to home, but I’d long wanted to see New Brunswick’s big forests. It’s a historical hunting area, too, popular with Eastern hunters for generations. Theodore Roosevelt hunted there, as did the great African hunter, Frederick Selous, on one of his North American jaunts.

The hunt was with Dave Winchester (Winchester’s Sporting Camps), bought on a whim at an SCI auction. He gave me a choice between fall and spring; I chose fall, partly because it suited my schedule, and partly because of the fall colors. Turns out Winchester has been operating in New Brunswick for forty years. His camp is a cluster of snug cabins, and he knows his woods and his bears. His baits were well-sited, overlooked by good, solid stands, and on arrival the bears were hitting the baits like crazy.

I left a week later without a bear. I don’t go bear hunting every year, but bears are kind of a thing with me so I’ve hunted them a lot, in a lot of places, and by most techniques. Thinking back, I believe this was the first time that I’ve blanked on a dedicated black bear hunt. I guess I was due. Sure, I would have liked to take a New Brunswick bear, but I’ve shot plenty of black bears, so it’s not the end of the world.

I’ve hunted black bears—specifically—in both fall and spring. Likewise brown/grizzly bears, but that’s a lower percentage deal; I’ve failed (and been successful) in both spring and fall. Obviously I’ve hunted black bears more than the big bears. The hunts are a lot more available and affordable. Black bear hunts have been both guided and unguided, but since I’ve never lived in grizzly country all my hunts for the big bears have been guided. It’s important to plan carefully, picking the right area, a great outfitter, and going at the right time. With all bears, a major point of discussion is which is better, spring or fall?

Sometimes there’s no choice. Spring bear seasons aren’t nearly as common as they used to be. But, given a choice, which is better? Since I just got beat on a fall hunt it may appear that I’ve answered that question. So let’s examine why, in a great area with a fine outfitter, I didn’t get a bear in September 2017. It’s simple: Expectations and weather. The first two days I had seven bears on the bait I was sitting…I’m pretty sure there were repeats, but at least four were different bears. Two were small and two were shootable, but I’ve shot a lot of black bears and I elected to wait. Then it started to rain and never really stopped. I sat through mist, drizzle, and downpour and bears were still hitting the bait—but apparently during breaks in the weather, even if in the middle of the night…not while I was there.

The bear stands in New Brunswick were sturdy and reasonably comfortable. In most bait hunting you sit from mid-afternoon until dark, when bears are most active.

I tend to like spring bear hunting, but in part that’s because no other big game seasons are open. You’re there to hunt bears, which is always the best approach. But fall hunting can be very successful, too. Mind you, I’ve thrown away a wastebasket full of fall bear tags—but a black bear was usually an add-on or extra while I was hunting caribou, elk, goat, moose, sheep, whatever. It happens, but I’ve personally never filled one of those “extra” tags while hunting for something other primary animal. Until now I’ve done well on dedicated fall bear hunts.

It does depend on the technique. Depending on the area, black bears are generally hunted with hounds, over bait, or by spot-and-stalk technique. With hound hunting I don’t think it makes any difference. Bears move and feed and leave scent, and it doesn’t really matter if the movement is nocturnal because good hounds can easily pick up a trail that’s several hours old. Density of bears and good dogs matter. Baiting counts on a bear’s appetite, its greatest weakness. Just out of the den bears are hungry and there isn’t yet much to eat, so it’s easy to get them on bait…but fall bears are trying to slab on fat before hibernation and they’re hungry too. Baiting works fine in both seasons.

Both hound hunting and baiting developed in forested regions where spot-and-stalk hunting is almost impossible. This is important to understand before you take the currently popular position that both techniques are unsporting. If spot-and-stalk is the technique, then my experience is that bears are more visible in spring than fall…but it depends on the bear. Almost all brown/grizzly bear hunting is spot-and-stalk. It’s more difficult, with fewer bears in bigger country, but the big bears are somewhat less nocturnal than black bears…and a grizzly or brown bear hunt is more likely to be very specific, and of longer duration. Carry a grizzly tag in the fall while you’re hunting other game and your chances are slim…but go into good country and specifically hunt bears and your chances go way up.

Availability of food is very important. In the spring you glass for bears on slides, meadows, beaches, even roadsides where the first new green comes up. Winter-kill carcasses are popular, and in some areas the first thing a bear tries to do in the spring is make a kill…and then it will cover it up and snack on it until nearly gone. In the fall bears come to berry patches and stuff themselves. One fall in British Columbia’s Skeena Mountains during a bumper-crop berry fall I counted thirty-two sightings of grizzly bears between September first and tenth. Some were surely repeats, but many were not. That’s a lot of grizzlies! In Alaska and coastal B.C. fall salmon runs are major draws…but there are spring runs for suckers and other species. Some areas have unusual situations. In Arizona, prickly pears are ripe in September; the purple fruit is irresistible to bears. In some agricultural areas bears become unrepentant crop raiders. Fall or spring, you hunt food to find bears.

Spring bears are lean; fall bears are heavier…and with less carrion and more berries, the meat is probably better. As for quality of coat, that’s a grab-bag. Most bears come out of the den with excellent fur, but as the spring warms they apparently get itchy. At some point in the spring—different from spring to spring—coats become patchy and “rubbed.” This condition lasts until early fall, when they start to grow their winter coats. The very best hides are probably late fall, just before hibernation…but that’s not consistent. I shot my best-ever bear years ago on the Alaskan Peninsula, a giant of a brown bear. The coat wasn’t patchy, but it was thin. Tooth section aged the bear at 29 years, a very old bear–maybe just too old to grow another good coat.

I want to go back to New Brunswick and try again. Maybe I’ll try spring, but not because I’m convinced it’s better. Rather, because spring bear season is a special and unique time. If you’re deciding between spring and fall, do your homework. It depends on the area, the food, the technique…and, above all, planning enough time and really concentrating on bear hunting.

One of Boddington’s best black bears was taken on a fall hunt in North Carolina. In that area the bears come into corn fields, making fall an ideal time to hunt them.

Leave a Comment

How to purchase the hunting property you’ve always wanted.

For many of us, hunting is our escape from the overcrowded urban centers where we work, from the rush of traffic and the frenetic pace of city life. Pursuing game is about being immersed in nature and leaving behind the stress of deadlines, traffic jams, business meetings, and corporate boardrooms. Increasingly, passionate hunters are investing their money in hunting properties—their own private places of solace from the mayhem of daily life.

But hunting property is just that—an investment. And, as with any investment, you want to be certain that you are spending your money wisely. The reality is that not all properties—even those within the same county—are created equal. And, unfortunately, there are unscrupulous individuals out there who have no problem swindling hopeful hunters out of their money and turning the purchase of a dream property into a nightmare.

For that reason, Sports Afield has teamed with a group of trusted brokers to help simplify the process of hunting land purchase. Jeff Switzer, President and Managing Broker of Rocky Mountain Ranch and Land (www.rmranchland.com), and Derrick Volchoff, Accredited Land Consultant at Trophy Class Real Estate (www.trophyclassrealestate.com), shared with me a few important things to consider before, during, and after the land sale to help streamline the purchase process and to help you make certain you’re getting the most for your money.

Before You Buy

Prior to making the first call to a broker, you need to define what you want in a property and recognize the potential pitfalls of purchasing land without doing your homework. Volchoff recommends setting your goals early so you have a clear image in your mind of what you’re looking for. Will the land be for personal use, for family and close friends, a hunting club or partnership, or an investment that will offer a financial return from mineral and timber rights? Will you be hunting, fishing, or both? What about off-road use for ATVs, motorcycles, and snow machines? Will you kayak or boat on the property? Is there a potential for immediate return on investment and, if not, is that something that could prevent you from purchasing the property?

Like Volchoff, Switzer recommends that you examine the key elements that are most important in a property very early in the purchase process. Since he works primarily with properties in the western United States, Switzer says that water is a critical—and often overlooked—element when selecting a hunting property.

“Water can come in many forms including lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, or marsh areas,” Switzer says. But, he adds, there’s a difference between water and permanent water, and buyers need to understand that.

“It could also be only a seasonal creek bed that carries water during the spring snow melt and during rainy months. The presence of water on or near a hunting property is critical to attracting and holding game in the area. Some properties can also be enhanced through the development of springs, wells, ponds, or water tanks.”

Switzer also lists a host of other key elements that you’ll need on your land for optimum game numbers. Cover and forage are critical elements, regardless of where the property is located, and the required cover varies by species. Big-game species demand cover from the elements and good calving habitat. Upland birds also require cover, and waterfowl will—generally speaking—require some water. Forage is critical because, simply put, game animals don’t hang around areas where there’s nothing for them to eat. Figuring out what a particular game animal or bird eats and determining whether or not those forage sources can be found on the property you’re eyeing are critical first steps to make certain you don’t buy a hunting property that’s devoid of the game you want to hunt. Simply finding an elk or deer track is not proof positive that the land you’re considering purchasing holds those animals in large numbers or during the fall hunting season. Simply because a property’s listing exclaims Deer! Elk! Wild Turkey! does not mean that those species are abundant on the property—or that they are there year-round. In my home state of Ohio, abandoned pasturelands (many of which are listed as phenomenal whitetail deer leases) are overrun with species like bush honeysuckle that provide cover but very little food for deer. The whitetails that live on those properties must seek food sources outside the borders of the plant monoculture abundant honeysuckle yields. While it’s entirely possible that your neighbor is getting weekly trail camera images of great bucks, you’ll have to do some property improvement before you’ll hold a lot of good deer on a property overrun with that invasive plant.

Property size and layout are also particularly important, says Switzer. Of course, property size is often limited by budget, but a five-acre property that is secluded and provides forage and cover for game will be more productive than a ten-acre property without food, water, or cover. Property size also dictates return on investment from timber and mineral rights. Switzer says that it’s critical that hunters understand the limitations of hunting small property, especially when pursuing big game. While a hundred-acre parcel of woods in Ohio almost certainly has some whitetail deer year-round a piece of land that same size in Montana may only see elk very late in the year when they’re pushed down from higher elevations by heavy snow. If that Montana elk property is where you want to hunt bulls during the fall bugling season, well, you’re out of luck.

Unless, of course, your property abuts public hunting land. Having the American public at large as your next door neighbor can be a good thing or a bad thing. One of the best scenarios, Switzer says, is if your parcel of hunting land adjoins public land that receives very little hunting pressure because access is limited. Expect those properties to fetch top dollar and vanish from the market in a few days. But if you happen to land one of those properties next to a fantastic, limited-access hunting area with thousands of acres of public property you’ve done quite well. If, however, the property you are considering purchasing adjoins public land with lots of access and lots of hunters your odds of tagging out at your vacation property are usually less. Speaking of access, Switzer also suggests determining whether or not the property is close to a major highway or, worse yet, bisected by a busy road. If so, you’ll run that risk that game will be spooked by road noise and that you’ll have to deal with trespassers and poachers.

If neighboring properties are owned by private individuals you’ll need to try to determine what problems might occur from activity on adjacent land.

“Adjoining properties can have a major impact on the presence of game on your property,” Switzer says. He suggests mapping your hunting property to determine what’s going on at the perimeters. Switzer also says that it’s critical to determine the property’s history and to take the time to research state regulations and hunting statistics for the region or county. What are the odds of success? What species are legal to hunt, when are hunting seasons and are there any special regulations or benefits for landowners?

Then there’s the other crucial aspect—price. How much can you spend? If you’ve got plenty of financial backing then you’ll be able to cast a broader net and pay extra for amenities like established water points and more modern and spacious living areas.

The scenery is stunning–but make sure there is plenty of game in the area, too.

Contacting a Broker

Both Switzer and Volchoff emphasize the importance of finding a certified, qualified broker. Volchoff recommends asking your broker about his or her education and accreditations. Are they an Accredited Land Consultant (Or ALC, a designation through the National Association of Realtors)? And, Volchoff says, a great hunting property realtor should have one more important qualification: sporting experience.

“In other words, does the dog hunt?” Volchoff says. There are a lot of hunters, there are lots of certified brokers, but if you are actually purchasing land on the assumption that it is suitable for hunting it helps to have a broker that’s experienced enough to, say, determine whether a tracks in the dirt road on a property they are selling were made by elk or domestic cattle.

Volchoff also says you’ll want to ask about the broker’s service area and recent transactions, and to negotiate and sign an agency agreement identifying your expectations and broker responsibilities. Understand what your broker charges and be prepared to pay accordingly.

Once that’s done, Volchoff recommends establishing the price range for vacant and improved properties (he recommends staying open to both) with your broker. Set a time frame for purchase, and be certain that you have the funds available.

“Be prepared to pull the trigger,” Volchoff says. “The most desirable properties sell quickly.”

To that end, he recommends working covertly. You’ll need to complete research and identify your options, but consider your property search simply another form of hunting.

“Trophy properties are like trophy game,”Volchoff says. “Too much activity in the zone will limit your success or invite unwanted competition for your target property.”

Using public records (county tax information, hunting statistics, satellite mapping) will help you prepare for the next step—and on-site visit. Your broker will help you access the property via vehicle, ATV, or on foot, but take a very close look at the land. Be sure it’s what is advertised and look to be certain that it has what you want. If it does, act quickly. Your broker will help you prepare and offer, and, with any luck, your hunt for the perfect piece of land will be successful.

For more information, visit www.sportsafieldtrophyproperties.com.

Leave a Comment

The lever-action hunting rifle is as American as shootin’ irons can get.

Photo above: Among the traditional Winchesters in Barsness’s collection are (top) a .25-35 Model 1894 rifle made in 1898, with a 26-inch octagon barrel; a Model 64 .30-30, a fancier version of the 1894; and a Model 1886 in .33 Winchester, the first and only smokeless cartridge chambered in the 1886.

Lever-action hunting rifles are an American institution. While lever rifles have been manufactured and used elsewhere in the world, America’s hunting and military history encouraged the development of a fast-firing repeater with a magazine capable of holding plenty of ammo.

Before self-contained cartridges were developed in the mid-19^th century, most American muzzleloaders were relatively small-caliber, so hunters and soldiers could carry more round balls. This changed when the western edge of European settlement crossed the Mississippi River, and hunters commonly encountered larger animals such as elk, bison and grizzly bears—the reason for the famous, larger-caliber rifles made by the Hawken brothers of St. Louis. But the small-caliber, light-ammo tradition still held east of the Mississippi, partly because “big game” mostly meant deer and black bears, and partly because that’s where most of North America’s early wars were fought.

Like most rifles, lever-actions were developed primarily for military use, and the technology was such a sudden, huge leap forward that some people feared for the future of human existence. European firearms designers concentrated on bolt-actions, because their military tradition involved massed troops firing at other massed troops. America’s military tradition was less rigid, partly because many soldiers were militia rather than professional soldiers, and often hunters used to acting independently. The first major lever-action success, and the rifle that became the mechanical basis for most later American lever-actions, was the Henry, with a tube magazine under its barrel holding 16 rimfire cartridges.

The Henry was a refinement of the Volcanic Rifle, a lever-action using a .41 caliber bullet that was also the “cartridge.” A deep hole in the back of the bullet was packed with black powder, then sealed by a percussion cap. In one of the ironic twists of firearms history, the Volcanic rifle evolved from a failed lever-action handgun, produced by the 1852 partnership of Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson, before they started making the first of their revolutionary cartridge revolvers. The Volcanic lost money, and Smith and Wesson sold the company to a group of “venture capitalists” put together by a clothing manufacturer named Oliver Winchester, and renamed the New Haven Repeating Arms Company.

New Haven’s head engineer, Benjamin Tyler Henry, then designed a more powerful .44 caliber rimfire round and an improved rifle. While .44 seems like a large caliber today it wasn’t then, and in fact the Henry’s major lever-action competition, the Spencer, used rimfire rounds loaded with .56-caliber, 350-grain bullets—but the Spencer’s magazine was inside the rifle’s buttstock, limiting capacity to seven rounds. While the Spencer cartridge was obviously more powerful, the .44 Henry was enough for hunting deer and fighting humans, and more Henry ammunition could be carried by a hunter or soldier.

The Henry saw some use by Union troops late in the War Between the States, when it famously became known to Confederate soldiers as “that damned Yankee rifle that can be loaded on Sunday and fired all week.” But technological change was rapid in the early days of cartridge rifles, and the Henry was only produced until 1866, when the renamed Winchester Repeating Arms Company introduced an improved rifle with a brass rather than iron receiver, named the Model 1866.

This first Winchester, nicknamed the “Yellow Boy,” was such an enormous success that it remained in production until 1899. Aside from being a very popular North American hunting rifle, over 50,000 were sold to various European armies, along with millions of rounds of .44 Henry ammunition.

Winchester continued to introduce new lever-actions throughout the 1800s  on the basic mechanical plan of the 1866, with an ammunition loading gate on the right side of their steel receivers. Most were larger actions, in order to handle centerfire cartridges that kept growing longer, culminating in the John Browning-designed Model 1886. Big enough to handle the .50-110 black powder cartridge, the 1886 was also strong enough for smokeless powder.

In the 1890’s Winchester continued to introduce new lever-actions, all designed from the ground up to handle smokeless, from the small Model 1892 in .25-20 to the box-magazine 1895 in .405—which became famous as Theodore Roosevelt’s “lion medicine.” In between the Model 1894 appeared, the most popular lever-action ever made and still in production over 120 years later. (While the 94 has been chambered for cartridges from the .25-35 to .38-55, it became semi-synonymous with the .30-30, originally called the .30 Winchester Center Fire.)

By then other companies started making inroads into Winchester’s lever-action dominance. In 1870 John Marlin had started making rifles similar to the Winchesters, and in 1895 Arthur Savage introduced a sleek new design, a “hammerless” rifle with a 5-round rotary magazine inside the action. Neither Marlins nor Savages immediately rivaled the popularity of Winchester lever-action, but had features that, over the next several decades, became more important to hunters.

Entering the 20^th century, Winchester lever-actions had two potential flaws, one the tube magazine used in all but the Model 1895, requiring blunt-nosed bullets. In tube magazines, the new “spitzer” (pointed) bullets being introduced in military ammunition could set off primers of other rounds during recoil—but spitzers shot far flatter, making accurate shooting possible at much longer ranges.

In the 21^st century, of course, Hornady introduced spitzers with soft synthetic tips for tube magazines, but the blunt bullets necessary a century ago didn’t really matter much until telescopic sights started becoming more popular—which revealed another flaw in Winchester lever-actions: All ejected fired cases straight up, so scopes had to be side-mounted, not an ideal aiming arrangement. Both the Marlin and Savage lever-actions ejected to the side, leaving plenty of solid steel on top of their actions for scope mounts, and spitzer bullets could be used in the Savage rotary magazine.

Eventually, of course, bolt-actions started taking over the hunting market, especially after World War I when so many returning American soldiers had grown used to 1903 Springfields and 1917 Enfields. Winchester’s only “new” centerfire lever-actions during the first few decades of the 20^th century were minor variations on earlier models, including 1935’s Model 71, a slightly modified Model 1886 chambered for only one round, the .348 WCF. The 71 had the bad luck to appear at the lowest ebb of the Great Depression, and only six years before American entered World War II, and factories were converted to making military firearms.

After the war scopes took over, and though some lever-actions could be easily scoped, more hunters bought them due to tradition than practicality. Some eastern deer hunters still preferred light, iron-sighted levers like the Model 94 Winchester and Marlin 336, and some bear guides liked big-bore levers, but eventually far more hunters viewed lever-actions as semi-antiques, partly because they supposedly weren’t as accurate as bolt-actions.

This isn’t necessarily so. Over the decades I’ve owned a pair of levers that shot as well as any of my bolt-actions except my benchrest rifle, a Savage 99-EG  in .300 Savage and a Browning BLR .30-06. However, neither had a trigger pull as good as most bolt-actions, though after working the 99’s over it wasn’t bad. Still, even many hunters who use lever-actions don’t usually choose them for trophy hunting—and I confess to being one. Mostly my levers go on “fun” hunts, for varmints or meat.

In fact my very first big-game animal, a mule deer doe, was taken with a Marlin 336 .30-30—my father’s rifle, purchased partly because his eyesight was so bad he absolutely needed a scope. My shot was so close the 4x only showed a slightly fuzzy view of the deer’s shoulder area, and I probably could have killed the doe without any sights at all. Aside from that first deer, all my hunting with traditional, outside-hammer lever-actions has been with iron sights, while my Savage 99’s have mostly used scopes.

Some hunters do use levers for trophy hunting. When a friend and I decided to do an iron-sight safari in Botswana in 2003 my primary rifle was a Ruger No. 1 in .375 H&H, but he took a Winchester 1886 in .50-110, loaded with black powder and hard-cast bullets. It was a package deal for Cape buffalo and four species of plains game from warthog to kudu, and we both took the same animals with no problems—though he put several more rounds into his buffalo, after having pretty much anchored it with the first shot. He also took an impala at over 200 yards, adjusting the “ladder” on the buckhorn rear sight for the range.

There’s no reason not to use an accurate lever-action with spitzer bullets and a modern “turret” scope for longer-range hunting. You might get some weird looks from fellow hunters, especially those who refuse to hunt with anything but a synthetic- stocked, stainless-steel bolt rifle and who think anything less is almost as much of a handicap as a longbow. That obviously isn’t true, as thousands of hunters taking big-game animals with “primitive” lever-actions have proven over the past century and a half.

Barsness’s first big-game animal, a mule deer doe, was taken with a scoped Marlin .30-30.

Leave a Comment

A new initiative aims to help hunters put their best foot forward.

The headline caught my eye right away when it came over my Facebook feed: “I Hunt, So @#&! Off!” Yeah, I had to read that one. It was an excellent short essay put out by the Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) pointing out why that’s really not a good response when someone questions or criticizes you for being a hunter—tempting as it might be to say it. We hunters tend to be independent cusses who would prefer not to deal with people who don’t get what we do. Unfortunately, that all-too-common attitude is not helping our cause one bit.

The essay is part of a new initiative by B&C called “Hunt Right—Hunt Fair Chase.” It’s a series of well-written pieces examining hunters’ image, ethics, and the history and meaning of fair chase. The initiative is meant to spark thoughtful discourse among hunters about how we present ourselves to the world at large. Granted, “thoughtful discourse” tends to be in short supply in the internet world and especially on social media these days, but B&C is doing an excellent job of helping hunters think about our image and how we can put our best foot forward. I urge you to check it out for yourself at www.huntfairchase.com.

B&C may be best known for its record book, but its founders were also the original creators and arbiters of the fair chase ethic, and the organization continues to promote and uphold these high standards. Judging from the comments on some of its posts, some fear that discussing ethical questions will lead to “dividing” hunters. I don’t believe that is the case. As the saying goes, we are all in the same boat, but if someone in the boat is shooting holes in the bottom… well, the whole thing is going to sink.

This effort is particularly timely in light of the preliminary results of the 2016 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, which have just been released. Hunter numbers are not getting any stronger. The survey showed that a mere 5 percent of the U.S. adult population went hunting in 2016. Hunting participation actually decreased 16 percent between 2011 and 2016, a number the survey stresses is “not statistically significant,” but it’s certainly not good news, either.

Many hunters don’t seem to realize it, or don’t want to, but hunting is a privilege, not a right. This is especially important to remember because we are such a minority, and we must respect the fact that it is a privilege if we want hunting to continue for the long haul.

Fortunately, we have a lot going for us. The vast majority of hunters are principled, ethical men and women who genuinely care about wildlife, habitat, conservation, and their fellow human beings. Hunting has been proven over and over to be a force for conservation and the best way to maintain healthy wildlife populations. But all that won’t matter if we can’t get the general public to see hunting as a force for good.

Of course, we’re never going to convince virulent anti-hunters that hunting and hunters are anything but evil, and it’s pointless even to try. But they’re not the ones we need to talk to. The vast majority of people in the world today are not hunters, but they don’t necessarily have a problem with it. They need to see hunters in their true light—fine, upstanding people who follow the laws and hold themselves to a high ethical standard. We grumble that the media won’t show us that way, but if they won’t, we have to lead by our actions, tell our own story, and tell it right.

Leave a Comment

Comparing the .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, .375 RUM, and .375 Weatherby, and more.

The .375 cartridges shown above are all suitable for dangerous game. From left to right: .376 Steyr, .375 Flanged Magnum, .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, .375 Weatherby Magnum, .375 Remington Ultra Magnum, .378 Weatherby Magnum.

The .375 has reigned supreme as the world’s most versatile caliber for more than a century. As hunting in both Africa and India developed, a consensus grew that hunters of the big stuff were safer and more effective with cartridges of adequate power. Over time the standard minimum for larger game came to be recognized as the .375. Actually, this is more legend than fact: Some African jurisdictions have no legal minimums, and the European equivalent, 9.3mm (.366-inch bullet diameter), is often the actual minimum.

In North America we don’t really need a .375, but a lot of riflemen are fascinated by powerful cartridges. Sales of the big boys have always far exceeded actual need—and today we have lots of big cartridges to choose from. The European 9.3s are available, and the proliferation of over-.40 cartridges is amazing. But the .375 still occupies its traditional position as the versatility king: Cartridges in this bullet diameter tend to shoot flat enough for most game under most conditions, yet the power is there for the really big stuff if needed.
Ah, but which .375? We often confuse cartridges with calibers. The .375, lacking qualifiers, is simply a bullet diameter, a caliber. Unique case dimensions define a cartridge. There are actually quite a few .375-caliber cartridges. Most have enough case capacity to propel bullets of adequate weight fast enough to render them useful on really large game, but a few do not.

Early in the last century the 9.5mm Mannlicher was introduced in Europe. It was a very mild cartridge, but it started to become popular. In 1905 Holland & Holland countered with the .400/375, also a mild (and unsuccessful) cartridge. A generation back Winchester introduced the almost-forgotten .375 Winchester, using light-for-caliber bullets at moderate speeds. All of these, and some others, are .375-caliber cartridges. They’d be fine for black bears and wild hogs…but they are not dangerous game cartridges.

In 2000, in cooperation with Steyr, Hornady developed the .376 Steyr, following Jeff Cooper’s concept of a “big bore scout rifle”—light and handy, yet powerful enough to keep you out of trouble with the big stuff. The case is .30-06-length but slightly fatter; it propels a 270-grain .375 bullet at 2600 fps, meaningful velocity that develops just over 4000 ft-lbs of energy. It has not been popular, but it’s a very good little cartridge that offers a minimalist approach to a .375.

I have a .376 Steyr; the cartridge is absolutely buffalo-capable…but it’s also a useful North American cartridge for tough game. It hasn’t been to Africa, but it’s been as far afield as Greenland for muskox and Donna has it on a bear hunt in Idaho while I’m scribbling away.
Although it fits handily into a .30-06-length action, few manufacturers offer it. Ours is an MGA rifle on a left-hand Remington action. Ammo is single-source from Hornady. In addition to the 270-grain load they offer a 225-grain load at the same velocity. The light bullet reduces recoil significantly for range work, and would be fine for anchoring hogs and such. If heavier bullets or solids are desired, handloading or custom suppliers are the only options.

When most folks say “.375” what they usually mean is the .375 H&H. Introduced in 1912, the .375 H&H is by far the most popular .375-caliber cartridge. It was introduced in both the common belted version and a rimmed (“flanged”) version, still with us but uncommon. With a 2.85-inch case a full-length bolt-action is needed…but every manufacturer who has an action long enough chambers to it. All ammo manufacturers load it and you can find it almost anywhere. Although there are other options “standard” loads are a 270-grain bullet at 2,690 fps and a 300-grain bullet at 2530 fps. By today’s standards these velocities are not flashy, but a spitzer 270-grain bullet shoots flat enough to be used almost anywhere, and the 300-grain bullet has long been proven adequate for any game on Earth.

Proliferation of the “lower .40s” has folks questioning the adequacy of the .375 for big stuff. Although 300-grain solids penetrate well (and 350-grain solids even better) my view is any .375 is marginal for elephant, especially in the heavier cover where most elephant hunting is done today. As for buffalo, the .375 H&H is absolutely fine. This was so in 1912 when the .375 H&H was brand-new. It remains true today. Buffalo have not gotten tougher…but with today’s better bullets the .375 has gotten tougher and even more effective. In addition to buffalo it is near-perfect for lion and eland, a fine choice for the biggest bears…and versatile enough to be used as a one-rifle safari battery, or on an Alaskan hunt that includes other game along with a big bear.

The .375 H&H is the benchmark. All “full-power” .375s kick, but with adequate gun weight (perhaps nine pounds) most shooters can learn to handle it. Its availability and long-term popularity are huge advantages; most African camps will have a cache of .375 H&H cartridges. This is not generally true of other .375-caliber cartridges.

In western Tanzania in 2010 Boddington used a Dakota M76 in .375 H&H. This East African roan was his most-wanted prize; the shot was in open country at nearly 300 yards. That’s getting to be a long poke for an H&H, but if you know the cartridge and its ballistics it will come through.

There are, however, faster .375s, and all are good. Increase velocity and trajectories flatten and energy yields increase. These are good things; they make the .375 even more versatile…and more effective on larger game. This is especially true today because we have tougher bullets able to hold up and perform at higher velocities. The commercially available “faster .375s,” in ascending order of velocity, include the .375 Ruger, .375 Weatherby Magnum, .375 Remington Ultra Magnum (RUM), and .378 Weatherby Magnum. All have two limitations: Increased recoil; and reduced availability. All four are currently loaded by just one major supplier, although handloading and custom loads are always options.

The .375 Weatherby Magnum, developed by Roy Weatherby in 1944, is an “improved” version of the .375 H&H, meaning the body taper has been removed to increase powder capacity. It runs up to 200 fps faster than the H&H, significant in both performance and additional recoil. Its big brother, the .378 Weatherby Magnum, was introduced in 1953. Its case is a belted version of the big .416 Rigby case, meaning it requires an extra-large action. It is a lot faster, shooting nearly as flat as a .30-caliber magnum and developing as much energy as a .458 Lott: Spectacular! However, it has never been popular. Initially this was partly because 1950s .375 bullets couldn’t stand up to the velocity. This is not true today; tough .375 bullets hold up just fine. However, it remains true that the .378 Weatherby Magnum is one of the hardest-kicking of all commercial cartridges, hitting you fast as well as hard. The performance is awesome, but not all shooters can handle it.

The .375 RUM made its debut in 2000. Like the H&H and Weatherby it requires a full-length (.375 H&H) action. With a fat, unbelted case based on the .404 Jeffery case necked down it has more case capacity than the .375 Weatherby, thus in handloads is potentially faster. However, in Remington factory ammo it’s about the same velocity as the Weatherby. Like the Weatherby its increased energy yield makes it hit about like a .416 Rigby or Remington…and it shoots flatter. Also like the .375 Weatherby its primary limitations are increased recoil and greatly reduced availability. However, of these two “fast .375s,” the .375 Weatherby and RUM, the .375 Weatherby has one awesome advantage: Since it’s simply an improved version of the H&H, in a pinch .375 H&H ammunition can be used in absolute safety. Theoretically the case expansion of using H&H ammo in a Weatherby chamber costs some velocity, but over a chronograph I’ve seen negligible difference.

The .375 Ruger is sort of a special case. It used an unbelted .30-06-length case with a .532-inch- width body, the same as the rim and belt of the .375 H&H. Thus it has greater case capacity and more efficiency. A joint project between Hornady and Ruger, when released in 2007 it was probably the most successful large-caliber cartridge introduction in history. However, a decade later Hornady remains the primary ammo source. Due almost entirely to case design efficiency standard loads are about 100 fps faster than the H&H. However, with handloads or “extra-fast” loads the .375 Ruger and the .375 H&H are about equal. It has the advantage of fitting into a .30-06-length action, which results in a lighter, more compact rifle that is usually (like the Ruger Hawkeye) less costly than most .375 H&H rifles. However, even if velocity is the same a lighter .375 Ruger will kick more than the H&H. After the H&H the .375 Ruger is the second-most-popular .375-caliber cartridge. Its availability is thus second—though a distant second—to the H&H.

So, which one to choose? Honestly, I like them all, except that I admit that the recoil of the .378 Weatherby is too much of a good thing for me. I’ll go for the majority vote: The .375 H&H makes the most sense, followed by the .375 Ruger. In performance on game there is no noticeable difference between the two, and difference in recoil is mostly dictated by gun weight. Higher velocity and increased energy are really not needed, but if you feel you must have them the .375 Weatherby and .375 RUM are also indistinguishable. I’ve used both; they hit buffalo noticeably harder than the H&H or Ruger…but the cost in added recoil is also noticeable and must be considered. I like the modern case design of the RUM a lot, but if you want more velocity (I said “want”—you really don’t “need” it) the nod must go to the .375 Weatherby Magnum. Not only can .375 H&H ammo be used; almost any .375 H&H rifle can easily be converted to .375 Weatherby Magnum by opening up the chamber, a simple reaming job—and .375 H&H ammo can still be used.

Some people question the adequacy of the .375 for buffalo. It remains perfectly adequate: Craig and Donna Boddington took these bulls from the same herd with a total of three 300-grain Hornady DGX bullets. The single follow-up shot probably wasn’t needed.

.

Leave a Comment

How a conservation-minded cartoonist helped save America’s waterfowl.

In the 1930s, the Dust Bowl was taking a tremendous toll on ducks and their habitat. Poaching, a lack of law enforcement, and draining of wetlands had been causing waterfowl populations to decline for years, and now the drought in the Midwest dried up the remaining breeding habitat. As waterfowl populations fell precipitously, sportsmen began to realize that dramatic action on the federal level would be required to stem the losses.

Ideas had been floating around for some time about how to restore duck habitat and how to pay for it. As early as July 1921, an editorial appeared in Sports Afield, advocating the institution of a Federal Hunting License for waterfowl and migratory birds. It decried the loss of wetland habitat and noted: “Surely no man who hunts migratory game birds would balk at paying 50 cents a year, the money to go into a special fund to ensure his sport…” The money, the editorial went on to suggest, would be specifically used for “the better enforcement of the Federal game laws and the purchasing of suitable marshes for public shooting grounds and refuges. With this much money available each year, the Government would be able to acquire large tracts of land for refuges, and the question of the preservation of our migratory game birds and the sport of hunting them would be settled for all time to come.”

Enter Jay Norwood Darling (1876-1962). He was born in Michigan but his family soon moved to Iowa, where he spent much of his life and became an avid duck hunter. While in college, he began signing his drawings with a contraction of his last name—D’ing—earning him the nickname Ding. Ding drew editorial cartoons for the Des Moines Register and the New York Herald Tribune between 1917 and 1949, and he won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning twice, once in 1924 and again in 1943.

Ding’s love of hunting led naturally to an interest in conservation, which became a frequent topic of his cartoons. He was also instrumental in several conservation initiatives in his home state of Iowa, including a move to change the state’s wildlife agency from a political entity to a nonpartisan commission—making Iowa the first state to do so. In 1934, despite the fact that Darling was a staunch Republican, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed him to a blue-ribbon Committee on Wildlife Restoration to study the problem of rapidly declining wetlands and waterfowl habitat. His committee came up with several ideas, but in the heart of the Depression, there was no money to fund any of them. So Ding decided to develop and expand on the federal license idea, which had been floating around duck camps for some time, as reflected in the early Sports Afield editorial.

The result was the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, better known as the Duck Stamp Act. Passed in 1934, the act required anyone over the age of sixteen who wanted to hunt waterfowl to purchase a federal duck stamp in addition to the already-required state hunting license. The cost of the first stamp was $1.

A crucial part of the Duck Stamp Act was that revenues from duck stamp sales did not go into the general federal treasury—they went directly to a Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, and a minimum of 90 percent of this revenue had to be used for the purchase, development, and maintenance of refuges for waterfowl. (Today, the law requires 98 percent.)

In the ensuing eighty-three years, the Duck Stamp has been one of the most successful conservation programs the world has ever known. Since its inception, it has netted more than $800 million and enabled the acquisition of 5.7 million acres of wildlife habitat. Anyone can buy a Duck Stamp, but the majority of stamps are purchased by hunters.

Ding himself created the first Duck Stamp artwork at Roosevelt’s request, drawing a couple of mallards landing on a pond to illustrate the inaugural stamp. The yearly duck stamp competition went on to become the only art contest sponsored by the federal government. There is no monetary prize involved, only great prestige for the winner.

Even if you’re not a duck hunter, buying a Duck Stamp (they now cost $25) is still one of the best things you can do to help ducks, geese, and other wildlife.

Ding’s contributions to wildlife conservation weren’t finished just yet. He was soon named head of the U.S. Biological Survey, forerunner of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. He didn’t have much in the way of staff to work with, since the fledgling agency only had twenty-four law enforcement agents to cover the entire country. Ding worked closely with local law enforcement and sportsmen, however, and was surprisingly successful at curtailing poaching. In addition, Ding put in place several laws that are still on the books today, including making it illegal to bait waterfowl, use live decoys, and hunt with shotguns capable of holding more than three shells.

Ding was elected to membership in the prestigious Boone and Crockett Club, and after his retirement in 1935, he went on to become president of the National Wildlife Federation. Appropriately, he has a National Wildlife Refuge named after him—the J.N. Ding Darling NWR on Sanibel Island in southwest Florida, which is known for harboring exceptional populations of migratory waterfowl.

Leave a Comment

A young sheep hunter braves the hazards of the Idaho mountains in search of a very special bighorn.

As I watched the bighorn ram bedded beneath the cliff, I wondered what was taking my son Logan so long to arrive. He had been glassing above me, and I when I spotted the ram I had motioned him to come down, around a large cliff face, to where I was. Suddenly I heard some rocks falling from the cliff and then experienced a father’s nightmare. Out of a crack in the cliff something fell, landing on the rock slide below, and began rolling down the jumble of rocks. Watching in horror, I saw arms flailing and hunting gear strewn down the mountain face. What should have been a great moment suddenly turned to a jolt of fear for my son’s life.

Logan began his hunting career at a very young age, and his interest in hunting and trapping is insatiable. Only fourteen years old, he has continually impressed me with his patience and skill in hunting situations. I was thrilled when he told me in the spring of 2016 that he wanted to put in for the draw for bighorn sheep in the unit by our house in our home state of Idaho.

I had put in for sheep in multiple states for nineteen years and never had success in drawing. I found out in June that the draw results were available and hurried to check what I knew would be a familiar “sorry, you were unsuccessful” response. I typed in our numbers, closed my eyes, and hit “enter.” When I opened my eyes I was shocked to see on the screen, “Congratulations! You are SUCCESSFUL in drawing a bighorn sheep tag.” BOTH of us had drawn. We now had two of the only four tags in this unit. I had drawn in my twentieth year of trying, Logan in his first.

As I related in my story in the July/August issue, earlier in the season we had tried shooting at two rams at the same time. I got mine, but quickly went from sheer exuberance to a feeling of guilt realizing Logan had missed. But Logan said, “You know, Dad, I’m actually glad it worked out this way. I would have loved to have gotten that ram but at least it was a clean miss and I got to share the experience of you getting your ram. Plus, now our hunt isn’t over, which means we get to spend more time on the mountain together.”

After packing out my ram, we regrouped and headed back up the mountain in search of a ram for Logan. We searched for two days but could not locate the same band of rams again. In the afternoon of the third day we had traveled several miles along the ridges where the rams had been all summer. Then the weather began to turn. Soon it was blowing and starting to rain and then snow. We decided instead of spending an uncomfortable night on the mountain, we would head down to the house.

The following morning I looked out at the mountain and saw it was still clouded over. We slept in a while longer and when I awoke, the clouds had lifted.  I walked into Logan’s room and woke him. As we were talking, I looked out of his bedroom window and noticed something on the mountain. I told him there was an animal over there and hurried to grab my binocular. As I put up my bino I couldn’t believe my eyes. I had spotted a bighorn ram from my son’s bedroom window!

We hurriedly gathered our gear and headed out. After crossing the Salmon River we watched the ram cross back over a saddle and out of sight. We worked our way up the steep face to get to the top, hoping the ram had bedded in the cliffs just beyond the saddle. It took us an hour to reach the top of the mountain and we circled to get the wind in our favor and slowly approached the top of the cliff overlooking where we thought the ram had gone.

Logan Reed with his hard-earned bighorn ram.

We crept to the edge, slowly peeking over, and saw nothing. We moved along the rim, looking down in the rocks below, but could not locate the ram. We then moved to a point overlooking the saddle where the ram had made his appearance and subsequent retreat. I figured if he did reappear, he would use this saddle again.

An hour or two passed with no sign of the ram. We decided on a plan where I would circle and slowly make my way along the cliff face. If the ram was still there, I might push him into the saddle where Logan had a great shooting position. I went back and down the mountain and began slowly working my way toward and underneath Logan’s perch.

There was ram sign everywhere. Beds, tracks, and droppings littered the area. This ram had clearly been living here. I rounded a point and could see Logan on the cliff a few hundred yards away. I moved just a few yards more and something caught my eye up next to the cliff face. Tucked behind a boulder was a ram’s white butt! I dropped down and began frantically trying to get Logan’s attention. I finally did and gestured furiously to indicate I had spotted the ram and he should work his way around to my position. Of course, in my mind these frantic hand signals conveyed a clear message, but to Logan, not so much.

Eventually I saw him gather his gear and head in the direction I had signaled, and then I lost sight of him. I sat, anxiously awaiting his arrival. That’s when I heard rocks rolling from the cliff and saw the rolling mass with what appeared to be arms flailing, leaving a path of hunting gear strewn down the mountain.

I hurriedly grabbed my binocular and, to my relief, saw that what had fallen down the cliff was just Logan’s backpack, not Logan himself. I was still concerned—where was he? I was relieved when he soon appeared and began gathering his gear. I tried to signal him to go lower and work his way over to me, but to my dismay he went back up to the base of the cliff and began working his way across the bottom of the cliff face. The path he was on would take him within ten yards of the ram. I frantically waved my arms, then resorted to jumping up and down and waving my hat, but Logan took no notice. I was sure the ram would notice the commotion at any moment and bolt.

Logan was now within thirty yards of the sheep. I decided I had nothing to lose at this point and I figured he should at least be ready for a possible shot when the ram bolted, so I yelled, “Logan!” Incredibly, he didn’t hear me, nor did the ram move. Now he was only twenty yards from the ram and I yelled louder, “Logan!” This time he froze, trying to locate me. Unbelievably, the ram stayed bedded through all of this. I motioned to Logan to go back. He reversed course and headed back across the boulder field.

About halfway across the rock slide, a rock rolled under his feet and down he went. I saw him hug the rifle as he tumbled two full rolls down the steep slide. He sat for a moment to gather himself and then soldiered on, eventually reaching my position. I looked him over. He was cut and bruised, but gave me an exhausted smile. He had saved the rifle from any hits as well, but his arms and shoulder had paid for it.

He explained what had happened. He had misunderstood my very clear (to me) hand signals, and came down the cliff in a crack. He got to a spot where he was hung up so he unraveled a para-cord bracelet he had made and lowered his pack with it. He lost his grip on the rope and that is when his pack came tumbling down the mountain. It was the sleeves of his coat, which was tied to his pack, that appeared to be arms flailing as the pack rolled down the mountainside. We both began to giggle, astonished that all of this had unfolded and yet the ram was still bedded a mere 100 yards away. After composing ourselves, we wondered if the ram were deaf or dumb. I had yet to see the ram’s head to determine his size, but we knew it had to be the ram we had spotted from the bedroom window. I told Logan the ram would eventually get up and turn around and bed back down, as rams always do. But another hour or two passed and the ram hadn’t even twitched.

Logan said, “Maybe he’s dead.” That started us giggling again.

I told him to be ready for a shot as I was going to try to slip out and get a look at the ram. I scooted across the ground until I could finally see one side of the ram’s horns. His head was up so he was definitely alive. I crawled back to Logan and told him the ram’s horns were fairly long and flared out, but they weren’t real heavy, so the choice was his.

He replied, “Dad, we might be able to go and find a bigger ram somewhere else, but we could never top the story behind this one! I always wanted to shoot one where I could look out of my window and see the mountain where I shot my ram, but I never figured we’d actually SPOT the ram from my bedroom window!”

Finally the ram stood and turned and bedded back down, never offering a shot. Logan could now see the ram’s head and vitals. He said, “He does flare out nice. I think I’m going to take him.”

He settled in for the shot and I told him where to aim the .300 Ultra Mag. At the shot, the ram came tumbling down the mountain toward us and lodged against a boulder. I told Logan to get ready and stay on him. After a few minutes and no movement from the ram, I hugged Logan and told him how proud I was of him. We gathered our gear and began working our way up to the fallen ram. I was ahead of Logan and heard him say something. I turned to ask him what he said and, wide-eyed, he exclaimed, “He’s up!”

I turned and couldn’t believe it–here was the ram stumbling across the rock slide above us. Logan quickly reloaded and took an offhand shot, which finished the ram.

After reaching the ram I congratulated Logan and then told him to go to the top of the mountain to see if he could get a cell signal to call my wife, Mariah, and have her bring a vehicle to the road below us. After about an hour, just at dark, I had the ram ready to pack out. I could see Mariah coming along the road below and flashed my headlamp at her. A short while later she had climbed up to the kill site carrying our two-year-old daughter, helping our four-year-old son, and followed by our other two daughters. All of them clawed their way up the steep mountain to admire the ram and congratulate Logan.

Logan and I loaded up our heavy packs. I held the four-year-old’s hand, Mariah carried the two-year-old, and with the other two in tow we headed down the mountain to the truck waiting below. One more trip up and down the mountain, and we were done. Logan was so proud of his ram and during the course of both hunts had taken several very nice photos, including one that appeared on the cover of the January/February issue.

The next day we took the rams to check them in and get the horns plugged. The whole family went along and the Idaho Fish and Game biologist, Jamie, included the kids in the process, explaining what she was doing and why, and the various things they were testing for. This was truly a family sheep hunt and one that will stand out among my most special hunting adventures.

Logan was proud of his ram, but it wasn’t long before he asked me, “Dad, can I start putting in for the draw in other states?” And thus another sheep hunter is born.

A heavy load he’s happy to carry.

Leave a Comment

The story of the original .300 magnum.

Peering through the Leupold scope, I could see my last shot was tucked nicely against the first two. I couldn’t help but smile as I got up from the shooting bench in my backyard and walked out into the pasture to retrieve the target. For almost forty years I had been trying off and on to find a specific rifle and cartridge combination, and now that I finally had it, it was proving to be an extremely accurate one.

I had read about the Super Thirty when I was a kid, but had never actually known anyone who owned one. Better known as the .300 Holland & Holland, there were never very many of them that made it into the hands of hunters north of the 49^th and by the time I actually held one in my hands, the .300 Winchester and Weatherby Magnums had already pushed the old Super Thirty into obscurity.

My first exposure to the cartridge was a pre-’64 Model 70 in the hands of one of the first big-game hunters I guided on my first guiding job during the fall of 1976. The hunter was a really nice chap from the Seattle area, and he had owned the rifle for several decades and used it to kill a large number of Roosevelt elk. Not surprisingly, at least to me, the hunter dropped his mountain goat with a well-placed shot at a couple of hundred yards and that was that. What else would you have expected from the combination of the Rifleman’s Rifle and the Super Thirty?

To this day I can remember holding that rifle and cycling the action. There was just something about it that left a lasting impression, and I made up my mind right there and then that I would some day own one. Little did I know that the combination of rifle and cartridge would prove to be an elusive goal for many years, for one reason or another.

Designed by the famous British firm Holland & Holland around 1920, the .300 H&H Magnum was introduced to the market in 1925. It was based on the .375 Belted Rimless Nitro Express, which had been introduced in 1912 and became more affectionately known as the .375 H&H Magnum. The .375 case was necked down to .30 caliber, retaining the 2.850-inch-long case, but producing a sleek profile with a long sloping body and shoulder.

H&H cartridges, as with many during that era, were quite long due to the use of Cordite as a propellant. Cordite was manufactured in long spaghetti-like sticks and was used in the UK until approximately 1915, when a shortage occurred as the Cordite was being used in munitions during World War I. The shortage forced UK ammunition manufacturers to look for an alternative and resulted in a switch to US-developed smokeless powders.

The .300 H&H is an excellent choice for a plains game hunt and is suitable for hunting most thin-skinned game around the globe.

The long, sloping body and shoulder of their cases resulted in the incredibly smooth feeding of both the .375 and .300 H&H, and helped to ensure easy extraction during bad situations, such as the high pressure spikes that Cordite-loaded cartridges were susceptible to in hot weather. Since the big British cartridges were routinely used in India and Africa prior to the World War II, the British developed reduced “Tropical” loads for many cartridges to minimize the potential for problems due to pressure spikes.

Head spacing and extraction in the early part of the twentieth century were usually obtained with a prominent “flanged” rim, but the Super .30’s parent cartridge’s rimless case head design would not provide positive head spacing with the long sloping shoulder. To fix this problem, H&H added a small belt at the case head on the .400 and .375 NE cartridges in 1904, and on the .375 H&H Magnum in 1912. The .375 and .300 H&H’s belted cases are generally credited with solidifying the term “belted magnum” in the minds of the shooting public.

Initially both the .375 and .300 H&H were proprietary cartridges patented by Holland & Holland, which meant that no other firearm manufacturer could build rifles or produce ammunition for either of the cartridges without the firm’s consent. Not surprisingly, Holland & Holland’s bolt-action rifles, which were built on reworked model 98 Mauser actions, were best-quality rifles of the time and required hundreds of hours of work by highly skilled craftsmen. They were not produced in large numbers and only hunters with deep pockets could afford a Holland & Holland rifle.  (Some things never change.)

When H&H released the patent rights to the .375 and .300 cartridges during the later part of the 1920s, New York’s prestigious Griffin & Howe and a number of other custom gunmakers began to build rifles in these calibers. Despite this, the .300 H&H continued to fly under the radar in the USA because of limited availability and prices beyond what the average working schmuck could afford.

But things changed rapidly after American shooter Ben Comfort used a Griffin & Howe .300 H&H Magnum built on an M1917 action to win the 1,000-yard Wimbledon Cup in 1935. The .300 H&H Magnum cartridge became the center of attention in the USA after the Wimbledon victory, and in 1937 Winchester began offering both the .300 and .375 H&H Magnum chamberings in its new Model 70 bolt action.

Winchester was the first major firearms manufacturer to offer these cartridges to the general public in a quality rifle at affordable prices, and Western Cartridge Co. simultaneously began offering a number of loadings for the .300 H&H—loads that  were eventually some 200 fps faster than the British ammunition. Originally, velocities for 150-, 180-, and 200-grain bullets were on the anemic side, listed as 3,000, 2,700, and 2,350 fps, respectively. Anyone who was using a .30-06 at the time would see little benefit in switching, as these velocities were about the same as those being achieved by commercial ammunition for the tried-and-true Springfield. However, the .300 H&H received a significant boost in performance with the Western Cartridge Co.’s new commercial loads, a 180-grain bullet at a little over 3,000 fps and a 220-grain bullet at 2,700 fps. Remington and Winchester followed shortly thereafter with commercial loadings that also bested .30-06 velocities by a couple of hundred feet per second with respective bullet weights.

For those in the know, the .300 H&H became the high-velocity magnum by which all others were judged for the next quarter of a century. Weatherby introduced the .300 Weatherby, which is a blown-out version of the .300 H&H case, in 1944. It was faster, claiming a 200 fps increase over the .300 H&H. It didn’t, however, have much of an effect on the market share of the .300 H&H because it was also a proprietary cartridge and available only in expensive Weatherby rifles that were beyond the reach of the average shooter.

Norma of Sweden developed the .308 Norma Magnum in 1960, yet another .30-caliber magnum based on the old H&H case. Although it offered similar velocities to the .300 H&H, it suffered from a lack of availability in rifles that were familiar to the American shooting public and consequently never really gained a lot of traction in the USA. Per capita, it was probably more common in Canada than the USA, as European firearm manufacturers such as Parker Hale and Husqvarna exported many rifles chambered in the Norma cartridge to Canada. Even today, used rifles chambered in the .308 Norma are not that difficult to find in Canada.

The fatal blow to the supremacy of the .300 H&H as the “go to” .30-caliber magnum occurred in 1963, when Winchester introduced the .300 Winchester Magnum. It was the last year that the now famous pre-’64 Model 70 was produced and, not surprisingly, Winchester dropped the .300 H&H from its list of chamberings in order to promote its new .300 magnum. Here again, Winchester’s new kid on the block was based on a shortened and blown-out .300 H&H case.

Suddenly production of affordable factory rifles chambered in the Super .30 took a nosedive and, not surprisingly, the shorter .300 Winchester Magnum was an immediate success with the shooting public. To make matters worse, the Remington Model 721, which was the only other recognizable American-made rifle that offered the .300 H&H chambering, had been discontinued in 1962. Anyone who wanted a .300 H&H now found themselves having to look for a used rifle or face the expense of having a custom rifle built, and why would you do that when the new .300 Winchester Magnum was so easy to lay your hands on?

With the .300 H&H no longer being offered as a regular chambering in readily available commercially made rifles, it did not take long for the ammunition manufacturers to follow suit. For the most part, the .300 H&H became a handloader’s cartridge, and many shooters with rifles chambered in .300 H&H opted to have their rifles rechambered to one of the newer .30-caliber magnums for ease of operation.

As it turned out, my first .300 H&H was a very used Remington 721 that I found in the consignment rack at a local store in the early 1980s. The Remington was probably a much rarer duck than a pre-’64 Model 70, but it simply did not have the rock-star status that the pre-’64s had at that point in time. Pre-’64 collectors were gobbling the good ones up and the more heavily used rifles were being bought up and torn apart to use the actions in custom builds.

Finding ammunition or cases to reload was also quite a challenge at that time, but I managed to find enough to get going and soon realized the .300 H&H was not difficult to load for and it shot really well. I had no trouble getting 180-grain bullets to clip along at 3,000 fps, as verified by the chronograph that we rented from the local range back in those days.

I packed that rifle around for several years and used to it to take several moose and elk, a few mule deer, and a couple of black bears. I had no complaints about the rifle or cartridge, but then a shiny Mark V in .300 Weatherby got my attention and I traded the old 721 off on the promise of even more velocity. I very much regret having done that, but I console myself with the knowledge that I just didn’t know any better at the time.

In the post-’64 era, the people who collect rifles and refuse to alter them, as well as the few who enjoy the nostalgia of carrying an eminently useful rifle in a “defunct” cartridge, have kept the .300 H&H alive. There have been a couple of special limited runs by manufacturers of a model chambered for the Super .30, such as the Remington Model 700 Limited Edition Classic in 1983 and the Ruger No. 1S Kudu in 2008 and 2009.

The Remington Limited Edition Classics show up once and a while listed on one of the online auction sites, but the Ruger No. 1S Kudu is primarily a collector’s edition and not easy to find. There were only 250 of the special edition No. 1 Kudu rifles in .300 H&H produced. Ruger got together with Lipsey’s and Craig Boddington to produce a special five-rifle set, each in a different caliber appropriate for one of Mr. Boddington’s five favorite African big-game animals.  Another limited run of Ruger No. 1s in .300 H&H was produced for Cabela’s 50^th anniversary in 2011.

Ammunition manufacturers have had on-again, off-again runs of .300 H&H ammunition over the years. Of course some of those coincided with the limited special production runs by the firearms manufacturers, but there have been others. Most of the big companies producing reloading components have offered .300 H&H brass over the years as well, so people with the old Super .30s have been able to keep them in the field without too much trouble.

Currently, quality factory ammunition is offered by a number of companies, including Federal, Hornady, and Nosler.  Hornady offers a single load with the 180-grain Interbond, while Federal offers three different 180-grain loads with the Trophy Bonded, Trophy Copper, and Nosler Partition. Nosler is the big surprise, though, with several different loads offered in both their Trophy Grade and Nosler Custom lines of ammunition: everything from the 150-grain Accubond to the 180-grain E-Tip and 200-grain Partition.

Commercial ammunition for the Super Thirty is not difficult to find these days, with Federal, Hornady, and Nosler all offering high-quality factory loads.

Over the last forty-five years I have spent a fair amount of time with the other .30-caliber magnums that were all based on the H&H case and can honestly say that I haven’t ever done anything with them that I couldn’t have accomplished with the old Super .30. I know there is a fleet of newer .30-caliber short mags and large case capacity ultra mags out there, but I just have never really felt the need for them. I have shot some of them, to be sure, but none of them has fallen into the short list of “keepers” for me.

In recent years I dropped using a .300 magnum all together, relying instead on a .338 magnum of some description. But a couple years ago I began to get the itch for a big .30 again to fill that void in my gunroom. I decided to go back on the hunt for that pre-’64 Model 70 in .300 H&H that had eluded me in the past.

It took a while to find one that fit my needs north of the border, as there just aren’t the numbers of pre-’64 rifles up here that you find in the Lower 48. Kids of my era, and even our parents, were much more likely to start out their hunting careers with an old sporterized .303 British on an Enfield action, a budget-priced Parker Hale, Husqvarna, or an old Savage Model 99 lever action. Very few people owned the Rifleman’s Rifle.

I kept running into a couple of problems during my search. The first was that there were a lot of formerly .300 H&H pre-’64s that had been rechambered to .300 Weatherby at some point in their lives. There were even a couple I looked at whose current owners did not even know that the rifles had been rechambered.

The second problem was that the rifles I liked tended to fit into the almost pristine collector grade and were out of my price league. Fortunately I found a gentleman with a nice pre-’64 that was in great condition, but not so nice that I would be reluctant to use it, and he was convinced he needed a .257 Weatherby I had that was collecting dust. So the trade was made, and for a change I think I may actually have come out on top.

In short order I had a scope on the old Model 70 and I obtained a few boxes of Federal factory loads with 180-grain Nosler Partitons. I have no complaints about the old girl as she consistently groups inside of an inch with the Federal load, which averages just shy of 2,900 fps. Even more encouraging are the handloads I have developed using the 180-grain Nosler Accubonds and E-Tips. With a case full of RL 22, both produce groups under three-quarters of an inch with velocities just shy of 3,100 fps in the 26-inch barrel.

There are a number of powders that perform well in the .300 H&H, including RL 22 and 25, both Hodgdon’s and IMR’s 4350 and 4831, IMR 7828, W760, and Norma’s MRP, to name a few. And as anyone knows, there is an almost endless supply of good .30-caliber bullets out there in a wide range of weights, with something to handle just about any job required.

It is unlikely that the Super .30 is ever going to make a big comeback when current trends seem to be focused on ultra-high-velocity cartridges, really big scopes, and the desire to take big game at distances that would never have been considered in the past. But for those that want a .30-caliber magnum for what they were originally intended for—to produce the extra power and flatter trajectory needed to cleanly and ethically take big game at 100 to 150 yards beyond the reach of the venerable .30-06—well, the .300 H&H is as good as the rest of the cartridges that fall within those parameters.

With the better factory loads and handloads, there is no real-world difference between the .300 H&H and its Norma, Winchester, or Weatherby offspring in both velocity and accuracy. There is no other .30-caliber magnum cartridge that feeds or extracts as smoothly and easily as the .300 H&H, something that actually has to be experienced to appreciate, especially for all of the shooters out there who have only ever known the sharp shoulders and short, fat cases that are so popular today.

I have also found, and I have read the same sentiment expressed by writers in the past, that the recoil of the .300 H&H is not as sharp as that of the other .30-caliber magnums. This is no doubt due in part to the smooth acceleration curve during ignition in the long, tapered H&H case, and a little-known fact about the Super .30 that was mentioned in an article by Ken Waters years ago in his Pet Loads: The Super .30 is, on a ratio of powder charge to velocity, the most efficient of all .30-caliber magnums.

The old Super .30 is a classic and eminently useful cartridge. For proof, look no further than the other outstanding cartridges that have been developed from it.