In response to the thread “The true purpose of a beaver tail forearm, I posted “According to Don Zutz, the purpose of a beaver tail forend is compatibility with a pistol grip and to keep the hands in alignment.”

A member posted, “Just one of many stupid things that Zutz wrote. A classic purveyor of misconceptions. How he ever came to be a "recognized authority" is one of the mysteries of the cosmos.”

The above is the first negative response to Zutz’ work that I have read and I was wondering what others think of Mr. Zutz’ writing?

I thought his stuff was pretty well thought out myself.

I always thought he was OK.....but we all have our own opinions...

I did not always agree with his opinions but he did give his reasons for them which is more than most do. Some of his work was very good and his explanations were logical. His opinions were just that and he was as entitled to them as anyone else. I did read all his stuff I came across so I did figure it was good enough to consider.

But when younger, I became so enamored with the writing of Jack O'Connor and the .270 being capable of killing everything in North America that I ended up taking a Brown bear with it while in Alaska. Not my intent, but sometimes the devil drives and the bear was the devil that day. Bear was not on my menu but he had me on his. He dropped within 15 yards of me, a another second later and I'd just be another stupid dead hunter. Under gunned, over my head, 3X9 scope cranked all the way up, hunting moose and not even thinking a bear was around. So after that I took everything I read with a large grain of salt and never forget the bad things that can happen.

I didn't believe in some opinions of O'Connor and Carmichael either, even more so those of Whelen and the short, big-hatted, quick-draw six-shooter. Generally, Mr. Zutz was right up there on shotgunning although I suspect with less influence than others among growing audiences of more sophisticated readers.

That is a memory that will stick with you for the remainder of your days I'm sure.....any pics?

Not a fan, but probably because he didn't have the literary skills of some of his contemporarys. Struck me as more of a journalist than a writer. I always read his stuff because the subject was one that interested me; not because I was attracted to his opinion.

R.

I like Zutz' stuff. Practical, down to earth, opinions based upon his actual experience in the field (for the most part). Don't have to agree with him, but worth reading.

Here you go Steve. I was never much of a fan of Elmer Keith's style in his later writings. But he did have a ton of experience to share.

Kind of takes us back to that Pipe Smoking thread...:)

Pretty decent credentials as a competitive shooter as well as a hunter gave him some credibility a lot of other gun writers lack.

Zutz was a recirculater of long held truisms whether they were actually true or not and a dedicated stater of the obvious.

Here is a condensed version of every gun test I ever read of his:

The ..... feels great in the hands and comes readily to the shoulder. The patterns from the .... are evenly distributed and within the specs for the marked chokes. I liked the .... a lot. You will too.

have another day

Dr.WtS

Wonko, you probably need to reread (or perhaps read for the first time) Zutz' "The Double Shotgun". A lot of lovers of classic sxs are probably put off by the fact that he was not all that high on the British, nor on most of the classic American sxs except the Model 21. But he fooled around with a lot of guns, including those in the economy category. Wrote about a number of those in a collection of his columns called "Grand Old Shotguns".

I had some difficulty relating to him as a bird hunter because he wasn't into dogs. No question that he didn't have McIntosh's talent as a wordsmith, but his stuff was down to earth and practical.

It was back in the 70's, when I was still in the service. Young, poor and dumb unlike now I'm older,.... My buddy and I were dropped off by his uncle and camped out for a week. I wanted a large Moose head and he wanted a Moose and bear. I only had a license for a Moose, no money. We split up the second day and I stumbled into my bear. It charged and I was lucky to get a fatal shot off before he rearranged my private parts. One shot, just inside the left eye socket stopped him, nothing else would have. That .270 was never intended for bear use, even Jack O'Conner knew that but he did preach it was fine for everything else.

I still smoked back then it took a good ten minutes to get a cigarette going. I never got my Moose. My buddy did, he got his and took my bear as his own. In fact if you got a few drinks in him he would recount the charge. I think he told so many people, for so long, that that's the way it is for him. He had the skin and skull along with a few pictures he took on the trip. I haven't seen him for 25-30 years. Maybe I can see if he still has a picture. I've still got a few friends from those days and will try to see where he is. I hate looking up "old" friends these days because I find too many are dead.

By the way, crank scopes down to lowest setting, make noise to warn bears your there, bring a bigger gun and pack extra underwear if you are Moose hunting and a bear pops up. That's my advise.

I don't care if you have pics of that bear Jon, but you better still have that rifle!!

Treblig1958, sorry to say that I sold all my Winchester Model 70's about 25-30 years ago and the money they sold for was used to buy a decent size farm. I had a lot of them and only wish I had a couple of them back, but not that one. Still have the farm and my son killed his first wild quail there yesterday. I'll take that memory any day over what a nightmare of what could have happened. I still have 17 of the .270 rounds I brought back from Alaska. After he went down I put a couple extra rounds in him to make sure he was not going to get up and kick my ass. Kept the rounds to remind myself of that day and never be that stupid again. It was my fault entirely and not the bears but I had the gun and he did not.

KyJ: Black bear or Grizzly bear?

Pay attention, Buzz.

Oops, my bad. Scary re Brown bear! Yikes.

Would you pleeze give us the reference for alleged O'Connor endorsement of 270 as a brown bear rifle and-or for any thing in North America? Book or magazine article reference? O'Connor never wrote that 270 was an ideal brown bear rifle. as I remember he said it was on the light side but with right bullets it would work by cool shot and under ideal conditions. In some of his books he mentioned Alaskan game warden Hosea Sarber who took many browns with a 270 but that was with heavy bullets and under controlled conditions. OConnor also wrote about hunting browns himself with 375HH and with a 300 Weatherby as I remember. I think you owe O'Connor an apology. Your comment sounds like just another one from a peanut gallery guy who knows more than some of the respected hunters and editors of the past.

There is of course considerable difference in something being capable of "Killing" & something capable of "Stopping". Re Karamojo Bell's experience with the 7x57 or the Indian Girl with a .22 long single shot against a "Big Bear".

Yes-especially Robert Ruark who advised to "Use enough gun" A USMC buddy guides for bear in Montana- carries a Mauser Magnum action in .416 Rigby- express sights and Barnes ammo- I asked him once why the .416-and not a .375 H&H Mag or .338 Win Mag- he told me that off them were good choices, but the .416 was "extra insurance" and added "dead clients don't tip as well as the ones that come back to the airport alive"--I like the late Cactus Jack O'Connor, and respect his now deceased opinions, but I think the .270, even with the new Federal Fusion loads, is fine for whitetailed deer and Black bear- but I'll take a 30-06 over the .270Win hands down, every chance I get. Like the late Elmer Keith once said- "What, you mean it kills them TOO DEAD?""

KY Jon didn't say he went hunting brown bear with a 270 but was surprised by a brown bear while hunting moose with a 270. Big difference.

Jack spent a lot of printing ink saying that YOU should have a .270, and it should be a spiffy, new, Winchester model 70. JACK, to a large degree, hunted with a 30-06. Keep in mind there were a lot of great gunsmiths in that era building beautiful custom rifles with controlled feed Mauser surplus actions, I guess those guys didn't seem all that important to Jack.
If any writer ever mentioned Alaskan Brown Bears, and the Winchester .270, in the same sentence, he should be forced to go do just that. I'm still waiting for a "perfect shot in ideal conditions", have been waiting most of 50 seasons.
Calling a .270 "a bit light" for brown bears is like calling a Bessemer furnace "cozy".
As to Don Zutz, at least he actually took pictures of the patterns he was getting, and figured out why some loads were tighter than others, out of the same barrel. And then told us, truthfully, why that was.

Best,
Ted

Can the previos 3 posters pleazze tell us how many alaska browns theyve killed and what caliber and bullet used and details of the hunts? Trophy pixs would be nice too. As Sgt Friday would say just the facts. Your facts pleeze not things read while on a sofa in mn pa or mich.

My Dad hunted with Alf Madsen, back in the day....He used a brand new 300 Weatherby. He got his bear but when he got home we went to the gun shop right away and he traded for a Super Grade Model 70 in .375. His comment? The bear didn't read Weatherby's advertising. After his death, I found the bear hide packed in salt in a wooden barrel. I gave it to a friend who took it to Jonas Brothers, who had to break the barrel apart to get it out, hard as stone...Their worked their magic and turned it into a fine rug....

I've killed one Brown bear total, well one bear of any type to be honest. So I am no expert at all. In ten seconds I came to begin to understand that everything I though I knew was crap or just stupid. It did take me years to figure that much out. After returning home I bought a .375 for my next trip, which came three years later. I felt under gunned for close work with any bear, even with that, and was lucky enough not to need it. No bears came too close and never have had much interest bear hunting in the first place.

I also had a .458 that I had bought, but could not shoot it worth crap off hand due to the recoil and a nasty flinch I developed with it. The gun is long gone, I still get the flinch from time to time. For my money a rocket grenade or Laws rocket are best for close work with pissed off bears.

To be fair Jack O'Connor, Zutz, and all other sane writers, none of them would ever suggest that a .270 was the gun that was capable of taking a Brown bear. My point is that readers are often young or ill informed, seeking knowledge and entertainment and take too much of what they read as gospel. Many articles are just written to make a living, to sell guns and bullets, not inform readers of the facts of life. Zutz published his opinions like most others but he also gave a lot of insights. some facts and interesting methods or observations with them. Take them all with that large grain of salt.

It's up to the reader to shift through them and make choices. I made mine when young and it was both wrong and stupid for both the bear and myself. I had a far greater chance of wounding the bear and getting myself reamed by a bear than killing it. Heck I don't think that the .270 is that good a choice for most large game anymore but gun writers need to sell both articles and makers need demand for guns and ammo.

To those of you who aren’t fond of Don Zutz’s work, this could be interesting as he said, "If we started from scratch to reinvent the ideal shotgun shell - - it would end up looking a lot like the 16 gauge."
Don Zutz reminds us in Shot gunning -- Trends in Transition (1989) that ". . two of the most famous rulfed grouse hunters of all time -- William Harden Foster and Burton L. Spiller -- focused in their books on the 16. Perhaps the most famous shotgun in all upland writing is the 16 gauge Parker hammer gun . . . `The Little Gun' of Foster's New England Grouse Hunting. And when Burton L. Spiller narrated the ordering and purchase of his first custom bird gun in More Grouse Feathers (1938), it turned out to be a 16 gauge."
Annie Oakley set a world's record by breaking 4,772 out ot 5,000 thrown targets in nine hours in February, 1885 (The American Rifleman, October 1998 issue). “She chose a couple of 16 gauge doubles for the job -- she knew the secret of the 16's reputation for superb patterns and modest recoil.”
The above is interesting to me because after many years of shooting upland birds with a 20 gauge SxS, I discovered a 16 gauge in the form of a #2 AyA and have never looked back.

OK, one more time, KY Jon was NOT hunting brown bear with a 270 he was hunting a MOOSE with a 270 and while hunting a MOOSE with a 270 he was jumped by a brown bear. Now do you get it????

I have killed no brown bears. I have killed no carnivores that would tend to try to eat me, if I had not succeeded in killing them first.
So, does that mean I should go out and try to do just that with a .270? I'll pass. Most anyone with any common sense would.
Winchester Reapeating Arms company was in a state of flux and dynamic change (some would say, dying) in the era Jack was writing about them and waxing poetic about the .270. Did he shrill for them? Maybe. I didn't buy any of the magic then, and I'll certainly not be buying it now.
KY Jon just typed about the best reference material I've ever seen for hunting Brown bears, and I suspected as much before he did that. Bravo. Glad he got out of that one.
The gun writers usually leave out the part about soiling yourself when things go wrong. A .270 seems to me to be a bad place to start on a trip for Brown bears in Alaska.

Best,
Ted

Darn right the .270 is a bad choice to go bear hunting of any color. Ted, I was after Moose not Brown bear. With proper bullet and decent placement a .270 at reasonable range will cleanly take down my intended game. A 30-06 or larger would be a better choice. But in the 1960-1970 era we were hearing about the magic of the .270, 7 Mag, 25-06, .44 Mag so in my formative years I fell victim to my education by the writers of the day. I don't blame them or myself.

Look at today's articles. The new calibers are just as magical as those they have replaced. I hope no Brown bears and young hunters meet in bad combinations. I don't even look at the bears in a zoo. I did years ago with my kids and I swear one of the bears winked at me and pretended to use his paws in a ripping motion. Have a happy new year.

Zutz was better than most of his contemporaries, in my opinion.

Askins the senior was one of the best shotgun writers, also in my opinion.

That, in a nutcase shell, clearly substantiates my comments in a way I would never have even wasted the energy on. thanks, Jim. and Rocketman too sorta

have another day
Dr.WtS

Careful, careful, Dr. WtS. That got dangerously close to a compliment.

Speaking from the British side of the Atlantic, I enjoy my copy of "The Double Shotgun", and I'm not in the slightest 'put off' by any lack of cover or support for British products. I find the coverage and support he gives to Darne and Merkel (to mention just two I happen to own) refreshing. These makers are often overlooked by other writers, but make interesting products.

I cannot really comment on any coverage of American products because its an area where we see very few over here - perhaps surprisingly. I have never really understood why, but we see many Italian, Spanish and other European guns, but apart from Winchesters (mainly O/U models from the last 30 years), very few American products.

A Happy and Prosperous New Year to all.

Hey Treblig better go back to gradeschool reading comprehension class. I never said 270 is ideal brown bear rifle and neither did O'Connor. Heres what I wrote ---- Would you pleeze give us the reference for alleged O'Connor endorsement of 270 as a brown bear rifle and-or for any thing in North America? Book or magazine article reference? O'Connor never wrote that 270 was an ideal brown bear rifle. as I remember he said it was on the light side but with right bullets it would work by a cool shot and under ideal conditions.

As usual sofa experts don't comprehend what is written or convert it to soap box materiall. Ky Jon was hunting moose with 270 yes and OConnor said 270 is not ideal browny rifle. Now dude do ya get it??? Hey will one of you get that alleged endorsment from OConnor that 270 is great for any thing in N.A. or is ideal browny rifle? Reference pleeeze. So far you all are avoiding that cuz you can't find it becuz he never wriote it. That's the point. get it?

"Would you pleeze give us the reference for alleged O'Connor endorsement of 270 as a brown bear rifle and-or for any thing in North America? Book or magazine article reference? O'Connor never wrote that 270 was an ideal brown bear rifle."


Remember this statement by you? And you just answered your own stupid question. No, but you did accuse someone of hunting brown bear with a 270 and he didn't. He was hunting moose with a 270.

Couple comments re both ends of the current discussion:

Zutz was an extremely prolific writer. And he was very broadly experienced when it came to shotguns. At one point or another, you can find him saying positive or negative things about every gauge out there . . . including the 24, for which he reloaded at one time. Praising the 16 makes sense, for the simple reason that it's a very useful gauge for all upland birds (and for that matter for ducks as well, back when we could shoot lead). Lots of writers also talk about the "magic" of the 28ga, which is far less versatile than the 16. I wouldn't condemn him for that, or for that matter wouldn't condemn any writer for expressing his likes and dislikes. Gene Hill, for example, didn't like the 20ga and made no bones about it. Yet according to survey data from LODGH (Loyal and Dedicated Grouse Hunters), it's the choice of half those who pursue ruffs, and significantly eclipses any other gauge in popularity.

Re using enough gun, Bell wasn't the only one to use a 7MM on large and dangerous game. Corbett shot most of his maneating tigers with the equivalent of a 7MM.

Ya, Pa deer hunter knows everything. Please tell us about your big game hunting career and articles and books authored.

Yah, a knowall Pa deer hunter.

Fantastic start to 2016! We get two of the best posting in one thread....old joe and cherry bomb. The very best in contributing nothing and crapping on everything.

My Dad taught me how to shoot and hunt, a World War Two Veteran, that's good enough.

234 posts from you, that are all just like this one.

Go to the corner, and sit with the dunce cap on, child.

Nobody is interested in your spew.


Best,
Ted

Ok,
Show me where I'm wrong.
A guy posted that he read Jack O'Connor and he liked the 270 Winchester.
The same guy posted that's why he bought a 270 Winchester.
The same guy posted that he and a buddy went hunting ane he took his 270 Winchester.
He then posted that while he was hunting for MOOSE he was jumped by a brown bear which he shot with his 270 Winchester.

Then some one else posted saying where did Jack O'Connor recommend brown bear hunting with a 270 Winchester?

I said he didn't go hunting brown bear with a 270 Winchester he went MOOSE hunting with a 270 Winchester and was jumped by a brown bear which he shot with his 270 Winchester.

Am I wrong here?


And I never read Jack O'Connor because I knew I would probably never hunt out west for big game, that's all. And you're right my statement concerning Jack O'Connor was too hard. I'll go back and delete that remark.

Ted that's because when I question regulars there friends chime in and say he's 100 % right and I'm out of bounds even to question the guy. So common here its sickening. Treblig you might be interested that O' Connor hunted for deer in Pa up in Potter County. Thanx for saying you might have been too hard on him. Those of you having mucho free time on your hands and counting my posts please see if you can find even 1 with perverse connotations or language. unlike many of your regulars still here who used to be on the offtopics forum with filth spill over into other forums. if yall want to get on someones case where were you and how about about them?

just a couple things

Bell used a 6.5 IIRC which is even more OMG! than a 7

RocketMan - I have complemented you many times - on your persistence........ eeerm I mean dedication

Anyone who berates or questions Gene Hill on anything needs beating with a stick

28ga - the only thing that keeps the 28ga from being the most popular ga on the planet is the ammo manufacturers insistence on limited production and insanely outrageous prices.

20ga - rating the effectiveness of a ga on the basis of popular vote ignores the simple fact that more than the majority of shooters (actually nearly any adult) don't know WTF they're talking about regardless of subject.

16ga - if it is so foo king wonderful why is it nearly extinct? Maybe the 20ga shooters should be told about it?

have another day
Dr.WtS

Well cherry, I'm going to assume you meant part of this post to be a rebuttal to my earlier post about us hitting the jackpot with you and old joe posting in the same thread. My comment and opinion still stands. Show me a post from either of you that isn't at least partly rude and crapping on the subject of someone else's post. Not careful rebuttal, just crapping.

And where are your contributions?

I used to post regularly in Misfires. I generally stayed on subject, was polite and civil even to those I thought had their head up their ass and defended others when personal attacks got carried away. I have always supported a forum that allows for differing opinion expressed civilly on any and all subjects appropriate to the sub heading. What I don't have time for is those who add nothing while spewing their own form of filth, as you call it. In particular, you and old joe.

To suggest that I and others get a free pass because we have friends here is just laughable. Go look up the thread in Misfires from two springs ago when I defended the rights of homosexuals to see if my "friends" gave me a free pass.

It's old joe's and your constant negativity towards others' comments, regardless of subject, that I object to.

Change your tune and I'll change mine.

As I recall bell was credited with killing somewhere around 1,000 elephants. By his own account around 600 of them were killed with the 7x57 (.284 rigby) mostly using military 173 grain full jacketed bullets. He did kill a good number with the 6.5x54
Mannlicher but found they would sometimes bend on hitting heavy bone so went with the slightly thicker 7mmm mostly. They were of approximately the same length & sectional density bullets but the slightly larger dia of the 7mm made them "Stiffer" thus less likely to bend. All of this from Bell's own words which appeared in an article which was published in the American Rifleman back in the 1950's.
Bell knew how to shoot & where to place the bullet, he was not in the habit of "Stopping" charging Elephants, just killing them, a lot of difference.
The most "Versatile" gauge in existence is the 12, hands down.

James (Canvasback) is one of few here who is invariably civil when discussions become contentious. My frame of reference is this forum, not Misfires. I was really glad when Dave created Misfires, I mostly stayed away from it and stopped feeling so discouraged by unhelpful personal attacks in gun rights discussions.

Jay

In my teens I read Guns and Ammo religiously. Back then Old Elmer had a monthly column and I absolutely devoured everything he wrote. Elmer Keith was directly responsible for the first gun I bought with own money after turning 18, a Marlin 1895 in 45-70. I didn't weigh but about 170 then and that thing some kind of pushed me around. Its been almost 40 years now and I still have it. I haven't tried to kill anything toothy with it, but should the opportunity present it self.....I figure I'm equipped to handle it. Mergus

I read Zutz's book, whatever it was, and found it to be a labor. Some of his ideas were more religious than rational to him (and I'm not knocking anyone's religion), but his poor grasp of physics got in the way. He was a good shooter, but I don't see where that translated to being a good writer or knowing how and why things work. I threw the book away when I got to the end.

I liked Zutz. He championed doubles when they were starting to resurge. Wonko has a point that he did some banal reviews of production guns; however, that was probably required for him to stay in print. A guy who championed the 3.5 inch 10 can't be all bad, Elmer would have approved.

Dr. Sane,
I have used a 20 gauge, on and off, for most of 40 years to kill all kinds of birds here in the midwest. Mr. Hill refered to the 20 as "Bitey" and preferred a 28, from my somewhat fuzzy recollection of his writings.
I always believed that if a 20 was "bitey" to you, you needed a heavier 20, or a lighter round of 20 gauge ammunition, or, maybe both, but, not necessarily a 28 gauge.

I'd just as soon not be beaten with a stick for that belief. I did shoot a really miserable round of skeet with a 20 gauge today, followed by a better one with a 12. I'm a little (lot, likely) rusty, and don't shoot my best when I'm shivering, anyway.

Happy New Year, Wonko. May your banjos all be in tune.

Best,
Ted

Hear, hear! Well spoken, indeed!

Ted - Mr. Newton says that charge weight for charge weight and gun weight for gun weight, bitey is as bitey does.
Perhaps a light weight stick for you hahaha

I’ve never had a 20ga
I never hope to have one
All I need’s a simple 12
In all the cosmos topped by none


have another day
Dr.WtS

Writing about shooting is a lot like writing about having sex. It's far better to be actually doing it. And usually the people who write best about it are not the best at doing it.

Re: WDMBell....as noted, his goal was to kill elephants, not get them charging first. Not only was he an excellent shot, he also spent a lot of time studying the skull of the elephant to know just where to place his bullet. To Bell, a small caliber rifle was easier to carry and aim and the much lower recoil meant he could shoot it at will - and do a lot more practice shooting. Same applies to ammo - cheaper, easier to get, and easier to carry in bulk.

James, it seems to me that cherry bomb has changed his tune... It has evolved to include whining and crying. But certainly nothing remotely involving Double guns. I believe you are correct. I cannot recall even one post from cherry bomb that was positive, informative, or contributed even one sub-atomic particle of double-gun knowledge. It does appear that cherry bomb may have had a bad or frightening experience with a Pennsylvania deer hunter though. I am making a New Years Resolution to try to find at least some good in everyone. So I will say that at least cherry bomb has not posted any liberal anti-gun crap... yet.

I judge an author by how compelled I feel to re-read his books. I have two of Don Zutz' books in my library and liked them, but I have never re-read them. In contrast, I just finished reading Bell's "Karamojo Safari" for at least the third or fourth time.

Well . . . we're talking GROUSE hunters here, weight being an important factor because you end up doing a fair amount of one-hand carrying if you're actually in the woods where the birds live. Easier to find a light 20 than a light 12, and you certainly don't need more than an ounce of shot to kill a grouse. The same statistics that showed the 20 to be the choice of over half the grouse hunters who responded also showed that the 28ga has gained significantly in popularity with those who chase woods birds, compared to surveys conducted back in the 80's--which would indicate that even 3/4 ounce works well for many hunters. The surge in interest among grouse hunters is likely due to the fact that most 28's back then were skeet guns, and while skeet chokes are fine for grouse, skeet gun weight is not. Parker Repro showed up in the 80's, and the Spanish started sending a lot more 28ga doubles our way.

The problem with the 16--which has also shown a modest gain in popularity with grouse hunters over the last 3 decades--is that it's not one of the "official" gauges in competition skeet. Therefore, the ammo companies don't crank out 16ga shells in good, reloadable hulls. And, like with 28's, the shells are more expensive than either 20's or 12's--or at least they have been until Cabela's started selling some pretty nice Herters-branded 16's. But just plain not a lot of 16ga guns out there in comparison to 20's, and never will be. Yet whenever Browning stops making Citori 16's, some volume dealer will come along and say they should make more of them--and Browning will do another special run. And they don't stay on the shelves for very long.

I don't recall which of his books it is, but I still like the part where Bell describes the natives' somewhat unusual behavior.... He would set up camp near a village and befriend the natives. When he would go out to hunt, anything he left behind - no matter how well hidden and/or locked up - would be stolen immediately by the villagers. It wasn't something they did with any malice - they just took it all. This got very frustrating until he figured out that he could simply leave everything unsecured and it would all be there when he returned. The difference? He would entrust the care of the goods to one of the natives. Having done so, no one would touch them.

Larry thanks for your comments about 16's. I would have thought it obvious to most of us that a huge reason for the relative lack of popularity of the 16 is it not being an official skeet gun and the resulting lack of reasonably priced shells.

to throw a slight curve ball regarding 'undergunned' bear hunting, I remember some 40 years back there was much written about going after a bear - I think even Grizzly was mentioned - with a .44 Mag.

As I had just got a Mod 29 with a 8 3/8" barrel and was young and stupid, I thought that would be great fun and something that a 'man' should have done in his life, I seriously tried for several years to get an invite or otherwise get at a bear with the .44!
Luckily it never worked out!
Has anyone ever actually shot at a bear(Grizzly or otherwise) with a .44 Mag and survived it?

Not trying to steal the thread - just something that came back to me while reading this thread through.

Happy New Year to everyone

Gunter

I don't know anyone who has tried with a handgun chambered in .44 magnum. I do know of a few instances where guys have used the Ruger carbine chambered in that cartridge to take black bears. These were less than 50 yard shots, and were one shot stops. Black bears run a lot smaller in this part of the world.
Grizzly? I have my doubts...


Best,
Ted

All 'ya need is a .38 Super!

"No animal on the American continent can resist the tremendous shocking power of its swift-traveling, hard hitting bullet..."

I haven't read much Elmer Keith, but I believe he has an account or two of taking Grizzly/Brown bear with his .44 revolver. I'm thinking of a not too flattering gut shot story. I seem to remember other credible stories, but there aren't many that I'm aware of.

But Elmer DID kill a muley at 600 yds.

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=34

Jack O'Conner wasn't so sure about his unflinching veracity however; see his "Confessions of a Gun Writer"

Wow, I'm impressed. Today, a game warden would have the cuffs on you for such reckless behavior. It reminds me of the days when we used to shoot aerial targets with my .270 in Potomac, Maryland. It's a story hard to tell in today's world.

Living in Alaska years ago, I remember a story of a G I from Elmendorf Air Base who was fishing north of Anchorage. The Anchorage Times reported he encountered a grizzly close up and shot at it with his handgun. The grizzly ran directly away from him and died in about 300 yards. The G I had used a 38 Special. I guess it was his lucky day when the grizzly ran the direction it did.

My Alaskan friends use to joke about lower "48's", that would be me(us) and their .357 and .44's. Told me if I wanted to pack a .44 it was fine. But suggested that I might want to file the front sights down. Seems using one on a big bear was not to be encouraged and the lack of front sight made insertion easier on the hunter's bum if the bear gets grouchy after being shot a few times with it.

I think their real message was not to think a .44 was going to save my bacon and the best thing to do was to avoid bears in the first palace which I had learned already the hard way. This was after my bear scare. They might also have known most people, who think they are crack shots against paper targets, can not hit squat against moving targets who might be dangerous or moving targets at all.

And charging, dangerous game, is almost impossible to bring down without massive over kill which the .44 does not have. I've killed one charging animal in my life and do not pretend to be any type of expert. But think about it. The brain is smaller than you'd think and it is on a neck which is moving in three directions at once. Spine is long thin line and the heart is never where we expect it to be. Heart and lung shot will kill but not that quickly. Shock and awe or hit something that turns out the lights at once. Otherwise a charge is going to reach an end. 99% of all four legged game is not harvested in a charge. Charges are moments of desperation and I was.

Mr. Bell was a world class shot, who spent hours learning where vital organs were in his "targets" so he knew exactly where his bullet placement would result in fast kills or kills with little chance of the target eating him. He preferred to shoot his game from slightly behind, using brain shots to dispatch them or have them run away from him. He was not a matador playing chicken with them and willing to give them equal chance to kill him.

A well place .375-.458-.500 is used on dangerous game to stop a charge. Not a .44 or worse yet a .270. Think about your target area. I am a very good bench rest shooter, a fair shooter from a decent rest and a poor shot off hand. We all are. Off hand shooting is something we don't do with rifles very much.

As to Eightbore and his .270, it was a fun round but not one I'd try at flying targets. But then again I did learn how to shoot aspirin with a .22 on the farm. At first the aspirin lasted a long time but by the end of the box it was nearly one per shot. The joys of growing up on a large farm many years ago. When PC was just two letters, guns were allowed to be taken to school for the rifle team, safe sex involved moving the bed and I still thought a .270 was a big bore, high power rifle.

I've noticed numerous reports of hunters running into grizzly bears in Montana. I can recall just a few years ago, an upland bird hunter with a twenty gauge stopped a charge from something like twenty feet.

If I'm not mistaken, the Montana wildlife folks document dozens of grizzly charges at humans each year with all the possible outcomes. Seems like each year bears are killed in self defense, but there're also maulings of hikers and hunter, and an occasional death. I have no idea what that moment would feel like, but even if it's just to make noise, I suppose I'd use whatever was on hand.

That buck killing story sure drags on longer than it should. Plus I gather you are saying you shot him with a .44 Mag but it sure would have been nice if you had just said so a little closer to the action.

Bell writes of dropping cormorants as they flew over a lake .....he was using up a lot of ammunition that had too many duds to be trusted in a hunt. The birds were pretty far off, over 100 yards I'm sure... some guy came up and asked him what type of shotgun he was using that allowed him to reach out that far - which was of course his rifle.

Not to pick on Drew . . . but we need to be careful about posting long extracts from published books and articles. They're copyrighted, and even if the author is dead (as in this case), it doesn't mean that copyright protection is no longer in force. Back in Keith's day, authors typically sold first time North American rights to their books and magazine articles. That means the author, or his heirs if he's deceased, still retain those rights. We're sometimes able to sell previously published material. Not a lot of money involved, but there isn't a lot of money involved in the outdoor writing business to start with. It's OK to post SHORT quotations from a book or magazine article, but otherwise you're stepping over the copyright line--unless you know that the work in question is in the public domain (which would be unusual). Maybe a year or so ago, someone posted the entire text of Corey Ford's famous story "The Road to Tinkhamtown" on another website. The moderator issued a reminder in that case. And it's possible that you might get Dave into trouble as well, because the text is appearing on his website.

Please respect starving writers . . . even if they happen to be dead.

Larry, if you site the author and book and page in your post are you still violating the copyright?

Yes, something to be aware and careful of, but not to worry here Drew, hard not to see this as a "fair use" copyright exception. It's a brief excerpt of Elmer Keith's story, reproduced as an example to illustrate a particular point. I can't see any conceivable damage to the copyright holder from this use.

Jay

Copyrighted material can be reproduced for educational purposes. The violation comes when the reproduction becomes a commercial event for the person copying the work.

Larry's point is valid, and I deleted the text and posted the link to the story, from another website
http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=34

Holly Cow, I sure hope when I am dead and gone people don't rip me as some here have done to Don. An author does his best to research his subject. Some errors can be made and, if an opinion, just that. I am sorry Don isn't here to defend himself. So--how many dis-tractors have published their works???

ive read with interest about the original post of don zutz n jack o connor.i too grew up reading my grandfathers outdoor life,he would never throw any away !he would easily have 4 or 5 months worth on his end table at any given time.
I read and reread oconnors stories from pre teen yrs til he passed .I also remember getting my very 1st .270 sako finnbear for ungodly price of $150.used in 1975.thanks for the memories!
tom

















1

His was one of the first books on SxS guns I read long ago - when there was a paucity in the number of such books. I've always thought he was a fine writer.

Not all natives of grizzly country are so down on a .44 mag. One of my best friends used to be a cameraman for one of the popular hunting TV shows. They were filming in Alaska about 10 years ago, along a salmon river, and my friend met a native Alaskan and struck up a conversation. The older man said "Son, where is your gun, you're in thick grizzly country." My buddy replied that he was okay,and that he'd keep his eyes open. The older guy was very serious and handed him a lightweight .44 mag revolver to keep until he finished filming. My friend hefted it and said he bet the thing would kick like the devil. Owner said "Son, you won't even notice it when you've got it in a grizzly's mouth".

Apparently he thought enough of one to bet his on life on it.

SRH

Re O'Connor, I have his "Shotgun Book" and refer to it on occasion. I will say that Jack and his copy editor made one pretty glaring goof in the text, where it stated that there were never any LC Smith .410's. Jack was around when they were still making Elsies and should have known better. And speaking from personal experience--both books and magazine articles--it's great to have an editor who knows your subject. But with guns, you can't always count on that.

Drew, thank you for deleting and posting the link.

Back on page 7 of this thread, there's a bit about anyone ever nailing a grizzly bear with a .44 pistol(??).
Don't know about the grizzly bit, but I clearly recall an article in Guns & Ammo in the early/mid 1960s, wherein its publisher Robert Peterson nailed a polar bear with his .44 S&W - complete with standard G&A gorgeous photography. Can't recall any comment about professional back-up for Peterson, but y'all can bet your booty.....

Ian, I don't doubt that the 44 will kill a bear. But you are not talking about stopping a charging bear. Just like Mr Bell shot a lot of elephants with small bore rifles he picked his shots. And a lot of men got killed trying to do what he did. Light rifles or hand guns like the .44 are

Take a decent shot at a bear it(44) should do the job given enough time. Better yet if you have a second shooter as backup if it goes square. But to stop a charging bear it is a choice of desperation. I would have used a .22 , a bow, or a big rock. I was desperate and dumb to have gotten into my situation. I had a far greater chance of wounding my bear and either loosing him or having to track a wounded bear assuming he did not kill me. Even with my friend and his much larger bore rifle I'd rather not need to track a mad, hurt and desperate bear.

I have seen several stories of big game taken with small bore or pistols and can only say that's your choice. I am also sure the many stories of lost game never get published.

Robert Peterson's .44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVW8MpaAwK0

RevDoc Drew - Thanks for that link - enjoyed it beaucoup.
I've just added the NRA Museum to my list of US 1861-65 historical sites that I'll visit late April on my way down to "The Southern Spring Classic" or on my way back "back north" in early May.
Also, I do appreciate your quality posts on this BBS.

In the 1970’s I spent some time living and working in Alaska. I did field work on scientific instruments in remote areas. We carried a 375 H&H for bear protection and I also carried a .44 mag pistol. When we were working the 375 was generally leaned up against a tree but the 44 was always on my person. Thankfully I never had a close encounter with a bear as we made a lot of noise as we landed the helicopter. There was one large bear on the Alaska Peninsula that stood up and waved at us as we flew about 100 feet off the deck. I think he was just inviting us to dinner. The pilot told me he did not want to develop engine trouble anywhere around that bear.

My brother lives in Juneau and his deer rifle is a .416 Remington Magnum. He hunted Brown bear once with a 300 Win Magnum. He told me that when he saw how big they were he backed off and bought a 375. We hunted Dall Sheep 11 years ago north of Tok and my sheep rifle was a .338 Win Magnum. My sheep loads were 200 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips and they did a fine job on the ram I shot. I also had a few 250 grain Nosler partition’s on hand just in case. The one bear we saw left the area when she winded us.