Woods, Trail, and Field

Woods, Trail, and Field
When hunting pigs and deer in the woods you are often faced with a quick shot opportunity or when hunting hogs sometimes you have multiple targets to engage. Our answer to that is the long slide 10mm with mini red dot.
Here you have a Rock Island 10mm that has been customized with a Burris FF3, new crown, reliability work, trigger work, and cerakote.
For that hike through the woods you need a capable handgun that carries nicely and will give you enough punch to deal with dangers on the trail as well as grant you the accuracy for a chance shot on game. For that we have the Packing Ruger.
The Packing Ruger is a GP100 cut back to 3? with an in house made fiber optic front sight held in a Novak dovetail. The barrel has been crowned to 11 degrees, chamber mouths have duty bevels, the barrel has been slab sided and fluted, and trigger work has been done. The customer will be adding his grips of choice!
And when you goal is to sit a food plot or small field where you may have to stretch your shots beyond ?normal? handgun ranges we have the Franken-Ruger.
This Franken-Ruger started as a standard GP100. We added our barrel and shroud system with a 12 5/8? barrel, Harrell brake, Weigand base, trigger and action work, as well as cerakote. The Franken-Ruger weighs in at 53oz. A factory 6? Gp100 weighs in at 45oz.
More info can be found at http://www.baysidecustomgunworks.com and on our Facebook page. Numerous videos are available!

What do you think of the RIA 1911s? I keep eyeballing them for a long slide project.

They are the best production 1911 on the market. Hands down.

And they have a great price point which leaves plenty of money for custom work

I wonder what the folks here would think of your claims that the .357Mag is a viable 200yd deer cartridge?



Wow, that's a bit of a stretch. They're good guns for their price point but a LONG way from the best production 1911 on the market. Better than Colt which uses forged parts? Better than Springfield Armory, Dan Wesson and SIG? Better than Les Baer too??? Or is it just the best 1911 for $500? Methinks you need to broaden your frame of reference.

Was craigc already taken?
And heck yes it's better than a colt.
I wouldn't call a caspian (Dan Wesson) a production gun
Nor would I call a lesbaer a production gun
It's equal to Springfield and sig....but you get more for your money with the RIA

I think I am more than qualified to answer this question for you Craigc....considering I have built many from bar stock...not just parts..

If it goes from a manufacturer, to a distributor, to a dealer, it's a production gun. If I can get on Davidson's and order it, it's a production gun.

I don't believe you're anywhere near as qualified as you think you are. Your rhetoric about Colt is unfounded bias. Can you name one nationally recognized pistolsmith who will agree that RIA is better than the others mentioned?

where not going to continue you inappropriate comments here like you have elsewhere. Good day

Well, we all know that hitting the target and hitting the target with authority can be two different things. I consider a hundred yards a pretty long poke for the "original magnum", unless from a single shot platform where you can really step on it.

Here we go again

Well, I've never been a Colt 1911 fan. Ones in the past that I owned and played with were plagued with reliability issues. No experience with the newer ones other than handling them. But, I can promise I ain't gonna pay the price they ask for the name. I can find better features and price looking at other brands.

Now, the Colt M4..........that sucker works pretty darn well.

As to the RIA? Weelllllllll, I wouldn't call them the best production model available. I must say, I've never shot one. Just handled several. I do agree that their price point and available calibers and options intrigues me and is why I keep coming back to looking and considering them as another 1911. The thing that keeps me from jumping on one is their finish work.

Great options. Solid feeling gun that locks up and cycles decently. But.........the finishing touch just ain't there. That's where I feel they save money and extend that saving on to the consumer.

There are a whooooooooole lot of sharp edges and angles on the RIA. The coating and fit/finish just looks rough to me.

They have the options.
They have the price.
I hear they have the performance.
They just don't have the aesthetic finish work that makes me feel kinda funny, like the rope in gym class.

And that's why I don't own one..........yet.

I do agree whole heartedly that the their price lends them to being a good base for custom work. That's for sure. A little finesse and a touch here and there..........who knows.

But, when I find the one with the right options and chambering I want..........I just might overlooks the finish work.

I need to handle a longslide RIA. That may just do me in.

What...you have seen this before....same old argument...

Yup...the finish leaves some to be desired..their a matte blue or parked gun right out of the gate.
The sharp edges are right there with the colt.
They will run right out of the box....after you remove the packing oil...I haven't seen one yet not run...from the cheapest one they sell to the upgraded ones.

The barrels have all been of good quality and the chambers are in spec. Like most factory guns they do benefit from a new crown.

That 10mm has a Clark/para ramped barrel which will fully support the case. That's important in a 10mm

The sights they include are basic and work. But the expensive machine work is done and is of a standard Novak or bomar style so you can add whatever you like.

You can have them all dressed up for less than the cost of the others.

As a Side note. Their steel doesn't take hot bluing well...kinda like the newer win94 they get a reddish tint to the metal when hot blued.
But they take cerakote just fine.

I have one customer who has shot his 10mm RIA quite a bit with rather stout loads...the frame, slide, and barrel still have a great fit for a production gun.

:thumb-up:

Really? Let's be honest....

Hey, I am all for pushing things past the status quo. Tell me I can't do something, I'm gonna try. Can't shoot a deer at 200 with a .357 Mag........I'm gonna do it.

Unless the science says no, I'll prove you wrong.

So, I applaud Bayside for his "bucking the system".

I am a fond supporter of killing sacred cows.

I have also posted before that I see the 357 version as the long range vermin getter and the RedHawk as the big game thumper.

Only you the one pulling the trigger can decide what distance is ok...that's up to you...

What I am referring to is old discussions about bullets and primers that turn into a forum argument,I"m sure that you are a talented gunsmith& a talented gun maker,good luck with your future projects.

Exactly!
I see no point in anyone telling someone something can not be done...one persons limitations may be different than the next.

It always seems there are some that just like to stir the pot.

Thanks for your kind words.

Has nothing to do with the shooter's limitations. It's the limitations of the cartridge. Yes, the long barrel gets more velocity but at 200yds, there is still two feet of drop to account for. Most ethical handgun hunters would consider such a shot to be an irresponsible stunt. Make the slightest miscalculation and you have a wounded animal. If S&W's so-called "200yd Club" was stupid, featuring the 2200fps .460S&W cartridge, what can we say about doing such things with a .357?

You didn't say the RIA was equal to the Springfield or SIG, you said it was "THE BEST" production 1911 on the market. And it's obvious you have not handled or worked on a Colt from the last few years. Now you say "the best" 1911 won't even take hot blue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48Eok5hQZo
By that statement this is just wrong too....maybe for you but not for them.

Have worked on quite a few colts....have worked on many newer ones...also well aware that they couldn't make the cut for the Usmc... Colt is just a name..I own a couple gen 1 and 2 saa that I think are great...and I see the workmanship and quality...stuff after that...I just don't. Sorry

One of the many write ups on the failing colts for the Usmc. Basic tourture test....

http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread...testing-failure

Castings, forgings, and machined bar stock all react differently to bluing salts...could it be blued. Sure it could just like we can blue win94 of the newer generations in a specific salt bath. Just not every shop has multiple bluing methods set up. It's a notable point so if you go to get it blued you know to ask.

Brownells does a great job of explaining this on their website if you look up the directions on their salts...it's written in an easy to understand way.

The 180 grain load was zeroed at 150 yards. Running a bushnell elite handgun scope with the old bushnell 4000 add on target knobs...scope tracked perfect.

With the 150 yard zero it puts you under 5" high at 50 yards well within a kill zone...or you could dial it down 8.4 Moa. At 200 yards your 12.3 inches low
Which is right at 6 Moa up.

I take shooting as a systems approach. One needs a way to judge range..adjust for it...get stable..and so on.
Distance is up to the shooter. One must be comfortable with what their doing.
If one is not comfortable with a shot...then by all means...don't take it

Distance is a known constant. If you know the distance, compensating for it is easy. Either hold or dial your elevation correction.

Wind is the changing variable.

As far as "ethical" distance? As long as the bullet retains enough velocity upon impact to reliably expand (HP) or penetrate (HC) and inflict enough damage to provide adequate terminal performance, the cartridge is up to the task.

That leaves the shooter as the deciding factor. My limit may not be your limit. Therefore, as long as I can reliably and consistently place my shots on target with a cartridge capable of the distance at hand...........honestly...........keep your "ethics" to yourself. Because, if the science is there and the ability is there........why not?

Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't.

No?

The 44 RedHawk versions numbers actually run pretty similar to the 180 in the 357...you do have a bigger bullet but it's shorter so you have less BC value.

We know that accuracy isn't a question for either one.

Wind is the challenge...over about 275-300 if the winds up your done with either one no matter what your shooting at. The BC values just are not there.
I did manage to pull off some long shots in high winds on pdogs which were on the video. But they sure we're not one shot hits.

It's not a matter of can or can't. 200yds is not a long distance to be shooting paper or steel. It's a matter of whether you should, on a live critter, take a questionable shot with a questionable cartridge.

Exactly!

I consider 200 yards a pretty long poke even with my 357 Max, in a 'Tender yet.

Remember, I prefaced my position with the stipulation that the cartridge be capable (retained velocity) and the shooter be capable (repeatable ability). If they are, the shot is not questionable. Right?

If both are, there is no reason not to take the shot if conditions are right.

The limit comes when either the science, ability, or conditions aren't there.

To say a shot shouldn't be taken when both science and ability are up to it is just being obtuse. Conversely, to take a shot when either the science or ability isn't up to the task is irresponsible.

Regardless of ability or conditions, I wouldn't take a 200yd shot with a .357 on anything bigger than a coyote.

That is, unless I've been sitting there all day, shooting a small steel target at 200yds and the buck of a lifetime walked out and stood right next to it. If that happens, I'll play the lottery too.

Well at least you know YOUR limitations.

My shooting is much better than your reading comprehension.

I think the biggest thing being missed is everyone is entitled to an opinion. And everyone has their own limitations.

And I support YOUR decision to do that. Honestly, I do.

But, just for fun......let's look at the science.

I did the math on my 10" G2 with 180gr XTP bullets.

My muzzle velocity is right at 1,575 fps. Hornady states on their site that the 180gr XTP functions as designed within the muzzle velocity range of 900-1,700 fps.



Using ballistic data, the 180gr XTP out of my gun has a retained velocity of 1,133 fps at 200 yards.



So, scientifically/mathematically, the bullet is impacting within it's designed velocity threshold according to Hornady.

Ergo..........scientifically......the numbers say the bullet will work.

Gotta love science.

Impact velocity is over 1000 at 200. And i am going to make an educated guess that the lead hp I was using expands easier than the xtp

Under perfect conditions, perfect shot placement, perfect presentation, the use of a laser rangefinder and intimate knowledge of the bullet's trajectory. Trouble is, your range has to be perfect. No guestimating. By the time it reaches 150yds, it's dropping like a stone. The drop from 150-200yds is 13". The drop from 200yds to 250yds is equal to that from 0-200yds. Over 40" from a 100yd zero. If you're off by 20yds, you miss. If you're off by 10yds, wounded deer. Are you going to measure the bullet's drop every ten yards from 100-200yds and keep that information on hand? Not a big deal if you screw up shooting steel. Really big deal shooting live game.

And what happens when everything is not perfect?

Like I said, it's an irresponsible stunt.

Hmmm,....

Always have a range finder and confirmed drops....even when I'm woods hunting...no point in guessing

I think he's just being realistic.

If one has the ability, the knowledge, and a capable cartridge......it's doable.

Using a rangefinder and knowing your dope isn't that hard. Folks do that all the time. Daily even.

I take shots with both rifle and handgun that some consider irresponsible.........yet.........it works. I'm cool with them thinking so. It doesn't effect me. I welcome the discussion. Because, in the end. Only results count.

There will always be nay-sayers. Welcome to life.

"Able to attempt it" and "should attempt it" are two different things. One man brags "I shot a deer at 200 yards with a .357 magnum" and another man proudly states "I've never lost a wounded game animal in my life."

I'm guessing very few men alive in the world today could make both brags. It comes down to your priorities.

I myself will quietly state that I have never wounded and lost a game animal. Ever. If I have to choose one or the other, I believe I have chosen well.

I just have to say that any of the Colt handguns I`ve bought, past or present, have given me good service. When I purchased my first handgun in 1973 it was a Colt Government Series 70 in 45acp. I was a big fan of Jeff Copper. Picked up a series 70 Gold Cup that I still own that`s an old friend. I recently picked up their Defender in 45 and Special Combat from the custom shop in 38 Super that work just great. Not trying to get into a discussion on Colt`s reliability... just my experience with Colt....

And whose job is it to determine this for another person? Are we not our "own man"? Should not one's own ability and the ability of their equipment determine their limitations?

Who defines these parameters for everyone? Who gets that job? What are the prerequisites for this position?

The very people you all idolize on this site, the "greats" in the handgun writing, designing, and pioneering world................They became who they are because they told people who said, "Don't do that" to pound sand........and did it anyway!

I'm sure many a folk past and present say/said, "You can't hunt with a handgun. It's not ethical." But yet........you do.....and are successful at it.

Why do the same to each other?

Every major step forward in the handgun hunting world came from those who "did it anyway", regardless the status quo.

Why hack our own kind off at the knees? This site wouldn't even exist if it weren't for someone, somewhere, at some time, bucking the system.

Bob Milek and Taffin did a lot of stuff folks said the shouldn't/couldn't do. I'm pretty sure of it. Those two got my interest going as far as handgun hunting.

Good Lord!

If you will re-read my post, you'll have to admit that no one actually tried to determine anything for you specifically. I said a man most likely will have to be in one camp or another, it's a rare man that can be in both. If you state here that all of the shots that you have made hunting, these shots that you say some would call irresponsible, have been successful and that they have not resulted in any wounded, lost game, I will believe you.

If , however, these extreme shots you're so proud of have resulted in wounded lost animals from time to time, then I reserve the right to personally continue to consider such practices irresponsible, unethical and born of an immaturity founded on arrogance.

You may hold fiercely to the right to do as you please, but you cant turn around at the exact same time and berate those who exercise their own right to dare express a personal opinion regarding those actions of yours. You cant have it both ways.

Its a discussion of opposing views. Relax and discuss

What he said ^^^

Just to clear the air, I am actually rather relaxed and honestly trying to discuss. The unfortunate downfall of the internet is that one cannot determine "tone of voice". So, if I came off as argumentative, my apologies.

Next, I was only addressing the portion of your post that I quoted.

"Able to attempt it" and "should attempt it" are two different things.

And in doing so, I was attempting to express that it is the job of the individual to ascertain whether they should or should not attempt a certain shot. And, we all understand that every situation is different. My "issue" is with blanket statements that someone should not take a shot regardless.

I've never shot a deer with a .357 Mag. It is just the example being used in this thread, it would seem. I may never shoot a deer with a .357 Mag, though I'd like to this year. And nothing says that I would ever attempt a 200 yard shot with said chambering. But, the ballistics are there. That has been proven. Environmental conditions, external circumstances, and shooter ability play in on the rest.

There will obviously continue to be two sides to the argument. I doubt anyone will give. We are all entitled to our opinion, obviously. But, that's just the thing. We are all entitled to our opinion. You. Me.

I'm not telling others that they have to take a shot beyond their ability or the ability of their equipment. But, there are some telling me (whoever) that the SHOULDN't take a shot they & their equipment are able to accomplish. So, it does seem a bit lopsided.

I'm not saying "Do", yet others are saying "Don't".. See what I mean?

As to your other portion, no. I have been fortunate enough to have never lost a game animal with a handgun. But then, I am rather meticulous with my shots, or try to be. So, while you might think I am flippant and errant with my rounds.......I'm actually rather anal.

I'm not mad at anyone. I just don't understand the animosity in general to folks that "push the envelope" when that is kinda sorta what handgun hunting is all about. Unless one sticks with point blank ranges, I guess.

Yes, I am here to discuss. Pardon the inability to properly convey through text.

Well. More proof in a handgun hunting thread for the nay Sayers.

Proof of what?

Ernie shot a pronghorn at almost 200 yards with a 357 FrankenRuger. They had been debating the merits of hunting with a 357 at that distance.

Thanks for clarifying. The post I quoted wasn't clear to me.

What I don't understand here is the idea that you have done something new. Irresponsible, yes but nothing new or groundbreaking. You've created a six shot Contender (minus 200fps) by adding an overly long barrel to a revolver in a marginal chambering to get original .357 ballistics and are marketing this "floating barrel" nonsense as a solution to some non-existent problem. You're still 600fps short of the .357Max.



As a "naysayer", if you think that hunting big game with a .38Spl (158gr at 900fps), while compensating for 50" of drop constitutes responsible handgun hunting, don't let me stop you. Speaking of "science", I tested the 158gr XTP in SIMTEST ballistic media. Here's what it does at .38Spl levels, almost nothing and it only penetrated an abysmal 3". This is what you're hitting that 200yd antelope with. All rhetoric about ability aside, do you really think this is a good idea? I don't.



The 1250fps maximum load of 16.0gr H110 went deeper at 7" and expanded well.



By contrast, the .44cal 300gr went 9" and expanded like so, second from the left. For comparison's sake, the 355gr WLN on the far right, that I used on the longhorn bull, went 24".

it was a double shoulder shot....so I'm guessing...I wasn't there...but Im thinking the lope was a wee bit thicker than 3"

bullet was visible on the far side of the opposite shoulder....I uploaded enough pics here for someone to get the idea...Im sure ernie will do a write up when he is done.

i got the pics out of order but good enough........

Looks like clipped a pulmonolary artery. Lucky. Gotta a pic of the bullet?

I posted all I have. I'm guessing when the bone fragged it clipped a lot. I like shoulder shots. They don't go far.

Not a animal I took. So I can only talk second hand about it.

My farthest was 220...last year....

I always get pics if in and outs and the bullet. Lucky is as lucky does. Fet some uncut videos next time. Id love to see them.

Why would u do that to a 357. Why not a real hunting caliber if thats what ya so choose.

we do them in 44 and 45 on the red hawk as well...but with the customer experience with the 357 version from 6-10" barrels...average is 8"....and ranges from 50-200 yards...on both hogs and deer...and now on a lope...the proofs in the pudding.

would a 44 make them any more dead? Everything....no matter the caliber boils down to shot placement.

Its just rifle concepts applied to a handgun....quite simple and well proven science accepted as fact in the rifle world.....to think the same wouldn't apply to a handgun....well....is nonsense.





the first 12 down the tube on this one test fired today shipping to another customer...first round is high..settled the bag...yes thats 12...240 sierra over IMR4227

At what range?

thats just 50 yards.

thats as far as i test them before I ship them unless the customer asks for something more. I just mount the shop scope...use those standard nothing special handloads and let them fly.

If it groups well there..I know someone doing their part in the loading dept and if their good on their shooting skills all will be good...end goal is MOA or better at 100. That would make that mark....well not with shot one there settling the bag...

When ya say 45 ya mean 454?

Haven't done one in 454

357, 41, 44, 45 colt so far

And just 1 22lr

Now as far as the antelope, yes it was done, yes it was dead, but there was a big lack of damage as u can see showing the lungs. If wind changes and the bullet places 3" back u dont hit that artery and id bet dollars to donuts that that antelope is long gone and found dead later. If there was ample lung damage id concede your point but we dont even know how the bullet performed. Ive worked alot of traumas where the patient survived a gunshot wound to thw lungs with a hollow point that didnt expand at considereably closer range and much higher velocity that survived hours of transport and time before reaching surgery. Ive worked none that survived a bullet of any type to a large artery. In medicine we call it luck. We call it that in hunting as well

That said. Good shot and i take nothing away from bullet placement.

Whole lot of luck going around I guess

The guy hunting with ernie just took one with the same gun a hour or so ago at 154 yards. A doe deer I think. I'm sure they will post details.

And I'm sure I'll get feedback from a dozen or more east coast hunters with these again this year like last year. The east coast seasons start in a few weeks. We shall see.

Know your conditions, your gun, and your capabilities. If the shooter can read and dope the wind all is good on that topic.

i killed a cow elk with a 240gr xtp at 90 yards with iron sights once, the cow died. The bullet didnt perform as advertised and i plain got lucky. I dont mind admitting it. My point is i think its important to be honest with our equipment and operate it responsibly. Losing game is a sure way to have limitations placed on our hunting. Same way i feel about bowhunters shooting animals with a compound at 80 yards. I know two ranches that dont allow bowhunting due to that. Im reports will pour in with dead deer with a 357 mag at incredibly far distances and we probably wont hear about any failures bc that is what this industry is plagued with a feeling of failure if we admit our own failures which is why i post the good, the bad, and the ugly so others dont fall into my pitfalls. II say this confidently bc ive seen well hit animals shot in the right spot with much more powerful calibers and see them fail. Heck, i had it out with a bullet maker on another forum for the poor performance of a solid on a 60lb axis doe with a 41 mag at 50 yards. I have video evidence of a good hit and the deer died a mile later. So better, more powerful calibers fail at close distances and somehow we have a 100% success rate at ranges that are at best mildly irresponsible with a 357 . Im sorry but ill fight against promoting that. Promoting the accuracy of your guns. Youve proven that!

Those same arguments against come up for the long range rifle hunting people/shows. And I'm talking extended long range....stuff over let's say 800 yards like you see on these long range hunting shows.

In the end it's the individuals choice on what they do.

I hold nothing against the guys who shoot extended long range on game. That's their goal and I'm sure they practice to get there.

I hunt with all kinds of wheel guns. Mainly iron sighted guns. In various calibers. My two go to calibers are 357 and 44. But I have used weaker and stronger rounds. And I have pushed the distance with irons as well.

The FR was just an experiment to see what worked and what gave best accuracy. The ugly thing was never intended to be built for sale. After I started shooting vermin at 400ish yards with it successfully that original goal was changed by a few customers.

One must remember. No two animals react the same way to any shot. One must look at many to make an educated guess/decision since there are so many variables.

I haven't had time to give the full story. Wrote this up late last night, early this morning.
The facts are the facts, whether you like/agree with them or not.

I made up my mind what I was going to use for Wyoming deer and antelope this year about a week before I would hunt. My 357 Magnum Ruger GP-100?AKA Franken-Ruger had only killed steel out to 500 yards. In fact, I had not shot it since that time. I knew I couldn?t use the 170 grain Sierra Tournament Master bullet that I had a 100 or so rounds loaded.
After seeking the advice of several, I chose Hornady ammo, using the 158 grain XTP Hollow Point (.206 BC).
Muzzle velocity is 1471 from my 15? barrel.
The barrel is long on this, since it was special purposed for the 500 yard goal.
For hunting I would probably go with an 8-10, if I did it all over again.
But this sucker shoots so good, I don?t want to change anything on it. Dan Ekstrom, a good friend, zeroed it at 100 yards, and at the same time shot his smallest group ever with a revolver ? 1.5? from the seated position using Bog-Gear tripod and the PSR top. He really likes that 357 Mag FR, to the point of being giddy.

At 150 yards the impact velocity where I hunt antelope is 1161 fps, 175 yards=1124fps, 200 yards=1090fps, 225 yards=1061fps, and at 250 yards the impact velocity is 1035fps.
So at 189 yards, the impact velocity is approximately 1100fps.

It takes 16 MOA for a 250 yard shot and 10 MOA for a 200 yard shot with my 357 Mag FR.
As a comparison, it takes 16.25 MOA for my 6.5 WSM XP-100 for an 825 yard shot.
A 5mph full value wind at 200 yards with my 357 FR drifts 6.4 inches.
A 5mph full value wind at 200 yards with my 6.5 WSM drifts .4 of an inch.
My 158 XTP drifts 6 inches more than my 130 grain Berger.

At 200 yards on game, I have never been concerned about a 5mph wind (until this week), while a 5mph wind at 200 is something I need to adjust for with my 357 Mag!
This is where I made my big mistake on my buck antelope.
My ?wind brain? was switched to the ?off position? when I was preparing to shoot my buck antelope.
Like I said previously, a 5mph wind is nothing in my hunting world.
I went through all of my other checklists to make sure, I was good to go, except wind correction. Full details at the bottom.

The 158 grain XTP Hollow Point is designed to work in the velocity range from 700-1400 fps.
http://www.hornady.com/assets/files/catalog/2009/19-22_bullets_handgun.pdf
Just for giggles, an Impact Velocity of 700 fps is just beyond 800 yards. I know no one is going hunt game at over 800 yards with this bullet, yet it is designed to work at 700 fps.
From Hornady, they say their bullet will work down to 700 fps.

The working range of impact velocities is a HUGE advantage for the types of use I have been putting my FR through, and to date this bullet has been exemplary on two deer (40-50 yards frontal shot, and 154 yards [not my kill] broadside) and one antelope (broadside double shoulder shot 189 yards).

Let?s talk about accuracy of this platform. When you have revolver capable of shooting a sub MOA group at 500 yards you have something special. This Franken Ruger is capable of that.
When you can consistently make hits at 200 and 250 yards on steel with shots only a couple inches apart while sitting on the ground and using Bog-Gear-I?m a happy camper. The scope is a Leupold 2-8 VX-3 (1/4 MOA clicks) and it has more internal MOA than any other LER scope. I added 40 MOA through the Burris Signature Zee Rings to boot when preparing for my 500 yard challenge. Dialing to shoot is something I do all the time. Using drop charts is something I do on a regular basis. I use high quality Laser Rangefinders, so I can know my exact distance-not a big deal here.

The revolver is capable, my field rest is capable, the ammo is capable, and the scope is capable. This leaves the variable of the shooter.
Sometimes he is capable, and other times he is not. Isn?t this true of any type of hunting?
Are 357 magnums capable of cleanly killing past 50 yards, 100, yards, 150 yards, 200 yards, and 250 yards.
To date, I can personally say, ?Yes? to 189 yards.
The real proof of a bullet is what it actually does on game, not test gelatin, newspaper or water jugs.
These other things can be good references, and be good for comparing.
But, nothing is better than tissue and bone. It is the true test.
That being said, I am not claiming these few kills are the all in all, but it is a good start, combined with some other data coming from guys who are using 357 FR?s and taking game out to about 150 yards on more than one occasion with good results.
I am not saying, you should use one to hunt with.
I am not saying you should hunt at distance with a revolver.

Now let?s get to the shot. We had made a long stalk, and the two bedded bucks had no clue we were there. We were on a small saddle with a small hill to our right.
The buck I was shooting at was not broadside, but partially facing away from me or quartering away with his head to my right. I was facing south and he was facing southwest. At the shot, I expected him to go down, but instead he got up. I saw, or thought I saw and impact behind him, and I asked if I shot high or Dan told me I shot high (can?t remember which). High was the call, and I trusted the call. I trust my spotter, and Dan does a good job. Both bucks were up now, but not sure where the threat came from, I pulled the hammer back, and aimed low from the call, and my shot went exactly where I was aiming from a vertical standpoint.
My mind was racing, trying to figure out what was going on.
At the same time both bucks began to slowly trot off to our right. I immediately grabbed my Bog-Gear and Franken-Ruger and ran to the right, got on top of the hill, and set up for shot # 3 if I get one.
What we did not recognize at the moment was this: First shot was a hit, with the vertical being spot on, BUT as I have noted already, I was not holding off or dialing for wind. Shot one hit the front of the shoulder, and exited about the middle of the neck (Remember he was quartering away from me on the first shot). Shot #2 hit him also. I aimed low because we thought my first shot was high, and the second shot took hide off of the front of his leg.
So far, two shots. First one probably would have killed him. Blood was filling up in the front of his chest cavity (we didn?t know this at the time).
IF, IF, IF I would have accounted for wind, it would have been one and done at 247 yards.
But that is not what happened. This has been burning on me since Monday.
I was told I needed to aim high for shot #3, and I shot high and this time I clearly saw my impact.
NOW, I knew where to aim. From the time of the first two shots at 247 yards, as they moved to the right, they were now at 189 yards, and he is broadside now. Right after the third shot, I pulled the hammer back, I had not adjusted from my 247 yard dope, but I knew where my last shot was, and just used the reticle. I knew he was dead now. All of this time. I had been aiming for a behind the shoulder shot. I wasn?t trying for a shoulder shot. Dropped him where he stood.
My mind was still racing over the events of the last 30 seconds or so. Then Dan, says, ?You shot him in the neck (speaking about my last shot).? I?m thinking to myself, ?No way!? as I knew where I had been holding, but I could see blood all over his neck. I was not happy, but he was down.

When we went down to him, Dan noticed the blood spray from the last shot was about 10 feet long. He couldn?t believe a handgun bullet could do that at 189 yards from a double shoulder shot, and he was right.
What told the story was the autopsy. My two impacts on his shoulder were about 2? inches apart from each other, exactly side by side. One was from the first shot, that exited out his neck (The first shot), and the second one (Shot #4), basically centered (maybe a tad forward) on his shoulder, went through both shoulders, and broke a lot of bone on both sides, especially the off side. Part of the bullet was just under the hide on the offside. You can see it in the picture.
When I hit him with the double shoulder shot, the pooling blood from shot #1 exited his mouth and his neck. The spray width and length was impressive.

Folks, these are the facts. I was not nervous about this shot. I was pleased about our stalk and knew he was within my capability and the FR?s capability. I expected there to be one shot. I was sure I was going to kill him with one shot-I was wrong. Because I stayed on it, there was a good ending, teachable moments, and seeing that XTP wreak havoc was very pleasing.
The field rest was sufficient, the gun was sufficient, and the ammo was sufficient, the rest of my shooting skill set was sufficient, but the wind part of my brain was not.
I will not forget those 30 seconds. It has humbled me and taught me.
Would I attempt another 250 yard shot all over again in the same conditions?
Yes, in a heartbeat I would. I promise you though, I would be checking the wind.

Never thought about video.
Someone had to pull teeth just to get the pictures I took. I wanted to hurry up and go after a whitetail.
The bullet performance was completely pleasing for me.

Bullet, what was left of it on the offside of the shoulder, just under the skin of the meat.

Rifle concepts don't apply to revolvers and to believe so is to display a basic misunderstanding of revolver ballistics and wounding. A 14" barrel doesn't make a revolver into a specialty pistol chambered in a rifle cartridge.



And yet, it doesn't even open at .38Spl +P velocities. Say what you want about testing media, SIMTEST is tougher than your average critter. So if it doesn't expand in it, it's not going to expand in an antelope. Penetration in tissue is going to be roughly double what we see in SIMTEST. Seems to me th at a lot of luck was involved and that if bone had not been struck, with fragments becoming secondary projectiles, we wouldn't be having this conversation because a wounded antelope would've run off, never to be seen again. Or are you going to have some truth in your reporting and let us know about your failures?



Somehow I doubt it but Chris claims his "shooting system" is better than lineboring so who knows??? I've talked to a couple gunsmiths that just sort of chuckle at the whole concept.


This is not about accuracy or ability. It's about whether or not the bullet has enough behind it to cleanly do the job it's tasked to do, with enough margin for error that the result will be positive even if all other factors are not perfect. Not what we can do but what we should do. It's about what is and isn't ethical and responsible. IMHO, this is neither. The fact that shots were missed, a spotter was required to call those misses and it took multiple shots tells me it shouldn't have been attempted at all. We're lobbing bullets at game animals now? Actually, from the guns to the BOG gear "field rest", the stupid long ranges, the entire approach to this reeks of prairie dog shooting. Not handgun "hunting" of a game animal. It was a stunt, it doesn't represent the sport well and it 'should' be condemned by all. Two basic rules of hunting were broken. Use enough gun and get close enough.

ernie, thanks for the photo. i wouldn't be comfortable with shards of bullets, just my opinion. at that velocity, what woulda happened if you shot that bullet at 20 yards?

You are welcome.
I have simply posted what happened.
After it went through both shoulders and wrecked him completely as the pics show I am not to worried about what was left of the bullet at the edge of the offside of the shoulder.
The meat report was loud to me.
When a bullet goes through that much bone, drops him on the spot (Talking performance of the bullet on flesh and bone) and he dies quickly, I don't see that as a failure.

I have used hard cast bullets in my FA 454 on mule deer and antelope. They were both double lung shots, so bone didn't help with the killing.
Even though I had exit wounds with both of them, I would prefer a wrecking ball effect of what I witnessed on this buck and two whitetails this week.
Since I have not double shoulder shot deer or antelope at 20 yards with this handgun/ammo combo, I can't say what it would do (since I haven't done it), but I would do it with confidence.
It may not make it to the off side shoulder, but hit the first shoulder and shredded the heart lungs...dead is dead.
Or simply since it is only 20 yards, just simply double lung him. Aiming at a different location on the animal at in your face distances is not a issue for me to do. Not worried about wind moving me off my aiming point at that range

Ernie & Hoggin , Wow,, The two of you sure kicked the white face hornet's nest!! I applaud all of the R&D along w/ good game pics. I don't have the varied game experience that most posters have,as I only dabble in PA deer & blackies. Throw some years of farm animal slaughter & small game w/ varmints in & that's it for me. SO , I relish discussion of this variety.

its a good discussion and since u can't tell tone on the internet it needs to be pointed out that it is a discussion. all the what if's are things we should be discussion to keep in the back of our mind. what can't be doubted is the great bullet placement. excellent job guys!!!

cont35bb,
Welcome to the farm. I'm an old farm boy myself. Black Angus cattle, winter wheat, with a little soy beans, and alfalfa thrown in. You are welcome. Ask any question you want.
Never hunted a blackie yet.

Ernie , thanks for the welcome ! It's a privilege to snoop around here. Employment has kept me away from the normal fall family get togethers the last few seasons. When between job postings has me benched in the summer, I ply my hand at woodchuck cleanup. A local farmer only allows .22RF, so that's what I use along with 22Mag & .22Hornet downloaded to mag velocity. It has been a real education in RF performance & its hunting not shooting ! My arthritic knees & hips tell me so. The area I live in is skirting the town of State College, home of Penn State University . As such this farm is also on the fringes, and it is bordered on three sides by developments. Shots have to be well thought out. I've tested several old standards along w/ new offerings in the RF line. I try to avoid any passthroughs that may richochet and if I miss the same applies. Subsonic ammo for inside Safety Zones (w/written permission)A few taken w/ various revolvers but most are taken with the TC Contender and four dedicated rifles that meet the accuracy standard. If the Doc clears me, I'll miss big game season again this year unless the elections hold some jobs up that keep me benched. Hopefully in the future I'll have a suppressor to deal with the evildoers within earshot of some homes. Farmer says "what they don't know ,won't hurt them". Later on then,,, cont35bb

I would broach that you tender your declaration of what is or isn't "ethical.
That is a slippery slope on a board with so broad a spectrum in regards to shooting instruments, "hunting" methods, and "game" taken.
Nonacceptance of anything outside your box of familiarity does and will continue to quench the fire of future hunters, members, and shooting enthusiasts.
I myself was and continue to be met with trepidation and distrust on this board because I don't fit into the old school revolver/cast/up close/offhand train of thought. I push limits and question dogma.

I have read on several occasions from the revered members of this forum of missed placed or bad shots being made and the necessity for several follow up shots. Take a recent "cow shoot" for example.
Wait, did I just call it a "cow shoot"? There's that "ethics", "hunting", and "game" conundrum.
From a board so inundated with the acceptance of game farms where animals are bought, relocated, fed, bred, and made dead for sport and money to even APPROACH the subject of "ethics". Then question if another's free range hunting activity "represents the sport well"? Boggles my mind.
I don't care if you buy Wilber at an auction, turn him loose in the fenced back 40, feed him till fat and happy. Then, sell him to the highest bidder to plug full of .50cal holes from a custom revolver, pat him on the back and say, "Great shooting, Tex!" Knock your sweet self out. Whatever makes you feel kinda funny. Like the rope in gym class. I'm happy for you.
Just don't question my method and tools for fair chase, free range "hunting". In other words........."Don't piss down MY back and tell me it's raining."

I support your right to shoot who, what, when, where, why, and how you want to do so in a legal manner. I expect you to do the same for me. THAT is how we grow this sport. THAT is how we gain new members. THAT is how we build fellowship.

If you never push the envelope and try new things........or allow others to do so as well.........you will look around and wonder why your forum is so small, gets so few hits, and is confined to the same folks talking about the same things......day......after day.....after day. Oh wait, you already do.

I like this place. I really do. But, there are quite a few closed minded people here and that is unfortunate.

Am I gonna shoot at an antelope at 250 yards with a .357 Mag? Nope. Am I gonna buy into the Franken-Ruger concept? Nope. Am I gonna pay money to shoot a fenced in animal off a game farm? Nope.

But, I'll support any one of you that wants to do so and you're a daisy if you do.

I don't like Chris any more than you do. But, I still think you need to lighten up on the guy. He's an entrepreneur running his own business. Trying new things, making a little money at it, supporting his family, working hard, and promoting the sport YOU love!!!! So maybe you ought to cut him a little slack. He ain't hurting you or your sport anymore than you shooting a cow off a ranch.

Just enjoy the science, the data, the lessons, and experience others share on this forum. Put yourself in a box and the view never changes.

Ernie provided data, admitted mistakes, and took a game animal via a legal method with fewer shots than some animals on this board from much closer distances.

Just enjoy, Dude. Learn a little. Give up the agenda. Pop smoke and move out.

Same team, my friend. Same team.

And before any of you think I'm hating on game farms and your "sacred cow"...........

James spends a lot of time and money hunting game farms. Shoots a lot of animals. Has a good time. Enjoys his passion. Then, shares it with friends.

That game farm thing ain't my thing. But you know what? James has been kind, supportive, and encouraging to me even though I know MY thing ain't HIS thing as well.

So, I will support and encourage that man right back. He treats me well......I treat him well. Two different parts of the world. Two different methods. But yet, we ain't throwing darts at each other.

I like James and friendly folks like him and a few others are why I'm still hanging out here. Even though some "ignore" me for not seeing things their way.

James is alright in my book. Two different people can still see eye to eye for a passion and sport they both share.

Wow. Thin skin, i get your point but u have to understand u made some assertions i think are misguided.
1) we have discussions about performance about cartridges and their performance. Always have and always will. WE are not thin skinned and many of the pics you saw were a bunch of guys that have had pitched battles on this and many forums about bullets and calibers. We have had throw downs that had threads closed yet hunt together and are friends, good friends. This was as much if a hunt and a bullet test and as coming from illinois, i dont feel some sporting superiority sitting in a stand and sniping deer and making easy shot vs being on foot within 45 yards of an animal that wants to charge as my cousin faced and the charge whitworth had last year! Perhaps with more tests like this we wouldnt have hunters not know what will and wont fail when they plunk down 15000 bucks on a cape buff hunt.

2). I dont dislike anyone here, not in the slightest, but i think that its irresponsible to have lots of large animal kills and not share what failed and what worked. I am intrigued at the guy that builds franken rugers. Cool stuff imho, and just because someone questions range or bullet choice isnt an attack when you have valid examples of failures with similiar situations. Ive always questioned dogma and have had many heated debates bc ive witnessed good friends be in bad situations bc they followed it in the hunting world.


Maybe people have some element of distrust bc u wont show your face?!?!

Having shot over 20 elk, 10 bison, multiple waterbuffalo, that watusi, over 40 oryx now, a cape buff, multiple bear, mt lion, african lion, innumerable hogs and tons of deer i may have a few opinions about what works and what has failed and ive pissed off people on all sides of the issue, but i havent yelled and screamed and just state my observations. I dont shoot a couple deer or other small game and take that couple kills and form an opinion and take a stand. I gave my honest opinion on the antelope kill, not to rip into the hunter. Hes a great shot but i feel theres a better way and a better bullet. Simple as that.

Zee.....who is this no eyed man?!? Well written my friend! I like handgun hunting...all handgun hunting. I like hunting any animals...any legal animals...I shoot 'em in pens and free range. The hunt is what you make it!

As far as James.......well....I guess he's ok.

Trademark, I wasn't referenceing anything you mentioned. I, like you enjoy good ballistic testing and the research thereafter. I don't post my resume or list of feats and accomplishments. I present the information and let it speak for itself.

My post was directed at and only at the portion of the quote and the reference to Chris that I covered.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

As to my face? Believe me, I'm sparing you the experience of such ugliness. You would thank me if you only knew the hideousness.

Ha!


Just saw these last four or five post I've been busy with other things.

Haha, i do appreciate that!

Why Zee...... I never knew you cared......

I agree that when the term ethics enters the discussion we are indeed heading towards a very slippery slope. We, as hunters are our own worst enemies (I just wrote an article about the divisions within the hunting community and how a united front is necessary to combat the antis, but that is neither here nor there).

That said, I have to take issue with the passive aggressive "cow shoot" statement you made -- oh, did I say cow shoot? I have killed a truckload of wild hogs in my day, and only a couple were behind a fence. While the occasional mature boar would offer himself for sacrifice in my quest to test the effectiveness of a bullet/load/caliber I was currently testing, most you encounter are of the smaller and dare I say softer variety. Sorry, but what a bullet does on a 120 lb doe or 100 lb sow doesn't tell me anything useful if I plan on hunting something much larger and dangerous. I clearly stated in that thread on our recent trip to Hondo, that we are performing live bullet testing -- on the media that counts the most. Now I have in the past been vocal about what have been termed "game farms" and about the lack of challenge on some of the smaller facilities, all ranches are not created equally. Just a couple of weeks ago, while in Texas, I watched an experienced bow hunter chase an elk for two and a half days. He never caught up with it, so I guess it's not like shooting fish in a barrel.

When I have thousands of dollars with of trophy fees on the line, I want to know exactly what my chosen load is going to do on a similarly sized animal -- period. This is just good responsible thinking IMHO. As Mark pointed out, we have had a couple of incidences of real aggression from these "cows" that I would never take lightly as unlike a 100 lb sow, these animals can actually kill you.

I understand the point you were trying to make, just not the way you were characterizing what we did. We aren't selling this as anything but science. I make it a point to test well and report accurately as I feel I have much to lose if I don't.

JMHO. Take it for what it's worth.

Had I whispered my point, I'd have been paid no never mind. So instead, I beat two pans together and got the undevided attention of the room.

If you understand the reason of my post, I hope you now understand my choice of examples.

I shot a pig in a trap last week for the sole purpose of testing a bullet to be used in a much more socially dangerous circumstance. Believe you me.........I understand what you are doing and why. There is no glass house with flying stones.

That may be the case, but you deliberately chose your words, and from here it smells a bit like condescension, but I may be wrong.

I know that 1,600 lb + bovines are on the extreme end of the game spectrum, but that is more what I prefer to hunt and therein lies the challenge.

I used the words that Trademark (I think it was him) used in your very own thread. It sounded "catchy" and like something he'd used or heard before. So, I just transferred it over to here.

I didn't come up with it. He did.

I'm not so sure you fully understood the point of my post and that's a shame.

Looking at it again, I see that you yourself used the phrase.

U didnt beat two pans together, you made passive aggressive snide comments that cut at many peoples hunting. Granted that u may in fact be superior in that u dont hunt behind a fence. You pressed attacks and cut at the type of hunting many many here do, then after many paragraphs and a response you pared it down and sai that you were only referring to craig. Funny that u tried to throw i witty words bc whitworth or I used it so we would recognize it, but i thought you were just talking to craig c?!? Obviously not, its subtle but obvious. That will certainly make people distrustful of ya

I said: "Definitely no cow shoot in the pasture" in the thread about the Texas trip. You can tell about how folks feel about what we did by their responses and just as loudly by their absence.

Yeah. Neither of you got it.

He got it.

oh i got the message, both the subtle and the not so subtle. i agree with kral but if he tried to shoot a waterbuff with a .223 single shot with a 3" barrel i'd caution against it.

i'd also hope he didn't take it personal if i voiced that opinion. i know i haven't.

I would too! But, I'd hold his beer and watch if he did.

;-)

Oh I got it too. I too can speak in the overt and the covert. As far as hiding your identity is concerned, while I get it as I have worked in sensitive fields (as has tradmark), you might want to also distort the most prominent feature on your face, your moustache.

Hell, I can shave that.

But then I'd have to blot out my mouth as well. So, in reality, the stash serves two purposes.

Looks epic.
Covers half my face.

Win!!!









:sarcasm:

Haha!

Passive-agressiveness, my favorite!

Yet, it seems to be working to that distance.

You are free to disbelieve.

i know of about 6 verified cape buff kills with hardcast bullets, i know of 2 verified failures with good shots and one barely recovered. now, is that a good rate? i think not, and i think that posting the standard, "well, it worked right here" is not a good stance until there's a large body of work, not a few, here it works instances. i've seen a few failures with a .357 on deer with good placement at a much closer range with the same exact bullets which is why we question that, and i'm known for taking a stand on the light side of calibers for big game, but this is ridiculous.

let me ask you, would you question it if you had seen failures?

It's not a matter of disbelief. It's a matter of how one interprets the results. If a dead critter is your one and only measure, then I reckon so. However, looking deeper, you may very well have a dead critter from a bullet that completely and utterly failed. At the risk of being labeled narrow-minded, that's from killing critters with bullets that failed.

Case in point, took this 80lb doe at about 40yds. Deader than a doornail. Problem is, I shot her with a rifle I was planning on taking to Africa to use on kudu-sized critters. It failed miserably but still killed the doe. She was only anchored when I brained her. The 300gr bullet from the .405 hit the shoulder blade and came completely unglued. It made a nasty but shallow wound. Only a piece of the core made it to the vitals. It shouldn't have done that but it did. Some of us are obviously satisfied with results like this. Others go to great lengths to test and make sure this doesn't happen any more than necessary. On elk, kudu or eland, this would've been catastrophic and resulted in a lost critter and a BIG trophy fee.



Another case in point, I shot two deer with a new .250Savage a couple years ago. (I only hunt with rifles for meat at the end of the season) A good sized 10pt buck and a big doe. The 100gr Remington CoreLokt killed the deer deader than a hammer but the bullets suffered jacket/core separation in both cases and penetration was barely adequate. This might be good enough for 'some' but I was disgusted. It made me switch to Barnes bullets for all future hunting with that cartridge.

Ernie with another. Harvested today.

I have some of the pics and stuff from hunters last year but I'll just wait till more role in from 2016

It's a rare occasion indeed when a thread reaches 100 posts.

My $.02:
Is it pushing the limits of what should be attempted to take a medium sized game animal with a 357 at almost 200 yards? Definitely.

Do I see myself doing so in the near or distant future? Absolutely not.

If someone asks me whether they should? I'd tell them to pick a much more suitable gun for the job.

That said, do I disapprove of Ernie and Zee doing so? No. They've both shown that they're skilled handgunners. Ernie especially has so much long range experience that if anyone is going to make that kind of shot, he's the one I'd want to attempt it.

Skill and bullet placement can't always make up for choosing the wrong tool for the job.

I think the journey to find the point of failure is what many of us here are trying to do.

And "failure" can be somewhat subjective in how the results are interpreted.

Blowing up on the outside, I would consider failure.
Coming apart on the inside after adequate penetration and internal damage, I do not consider a failure.
Poking a hole all the way through with little to no damage to the internal organs, I would consider a failure.

Consideration as to isolated incidents or continuous occurrences must be taken into account.

And thorough documentation must be gathered if either side is to prove their position. Thorough!! A picture of a bullet fragment without visual reference as to what was struck, how far, at what angle, and at what speed, etc.........

Complete data is how you prove a point. Partial data collected is just that..........partial data.

"The difference between screwing around and science is..........writing it down." Or, in other words........complete data.

that is the problem here, i don't disapprove, but discuss. it, does not, in anyway make me upset or worry to see them shooting like that. if we are gonna discuss it, then lets discuss. i never throw up any pics or results from any hunt i've had and not wanted, nor expected a discussion. in fact, on the other thread the reference to this discussion and brought up the whole issue on whether a .357 is appropriate was brought up first by none other than Zee himself, so it's fairly disingenious to feel attacked and whatnot. i didn't realize this was a year old, but it wasn't brought up by any of the naysayers.


sooooooo............if i showed a pic of a dead cape buff from a .357 we would all agree it's appropriate for cape buff right??? show up to africa with a 308 and try and hunt a cape buff with it, see how your ph reacts. same principle here.

once again, ZEE brought this whole thing up on the loper's thread, till then no one chimed in anything.

I brought it up because we had new data. Complete with pics and what not.

Up until that point, we just had numbers on paper and speculation. With the taking of the antelope, we had a new, revised basis of discernment.

A pic of a dead animal is just that. A pic of a dead animal. The proof is in the pudding.......as it were. Gotta get inside and touch the unmentionables. Get your hands dirty. Play around. Study.........dissect...document......learn.

I see a pic of your dead doe and, other than simply taking your word for it..........I learn nothing tangible. It's a dead animal with a bunch of blood on the outside. There is no thorough documentation.........in that picture alone.

Ernie with another one. Just a few min ago

He can fill in details later

No sir, the nameless and faceless one, stirred the pot. It was inflamatory rhetoric and that cant be denied. You are exactly correct. THE doe and THE antelope.

How far, bullet, etc. good pic

And THE 2nd doe.

One data point at a time.

We will not change each others opinion at this point, I don't believe.

I am looking towards more data. Taking each new example as an test bed unto its own. Not drawing a conclusion in certainty. Treating each as just more information.

Others have already seen what they need and drawn their own conclusions.

We're all learning. As long as we keep an open mind about it.

I'll give the facts as they were texted to me. I may be incorrect since I'm not there and I'm actually running a lathe right now.

First. 85 yards. 40 yard recover

Second. 99 yards. I have no idea

That's all I got.

I could go over last years stuff but it would be from memory and it's from customers that may or may not be on here to help support with data.

I actually don't do much hunting with these things...I build enough of them that I don't want to touch one in my off time.

I do hunt a lot with a 357 tho...

me too. those are interesting and what i would consider the outside limits of the cartridge from my experience. good shooting.

On each deer I was trying to make sure I did not hit either shoulder just to see what the bullet performance was. With both deer the shoulders was not touched at all.
The first deer was quartering away from me slightly at 85 yards. I shot this deer from the standing position using the bog-gear as a quick rest. All three of the deer were still hunting, not stand or ground blind.
On this first deer my impact was about 3 inches left of what I wanted to do ideally.
Normally I would not try to get a bullet to impact here as I would like to get the offside shoulder when their quartering away from me. She went 40 yards approximately and was down
Second deer I thought was smaller than the first one but she was in tall grass versus the first deer was more in the open.
The second deer at 99 yards was actually larger than the first deer. So much for initial perceptions of size
Both Dan and I thought she was basically broadside to us.
She was not. She was Quartering toward us.
I went into a double kneeling position for the shot.
Again consciously trying to avoid the shoulder for the purpose of seeing what this bullet would do without hitting a shoulder.
I can tell you I will not try to avoid shoulders at all cost again, as both times I shot further back than I would've wanted to.
We had a blood trail all the way to her but she went further.
On both deer there were complete pass-throughs.
I didn't have anything as a reference point or a para calipers to measure the diameter of the exit wound but I would say that it was close to a double the size of the bullet diameter or maybe one and a half times I'm not sure. The exit diameter seem to be the same on both of them and neither time did the bullet hit ribs to create other damage
We are eating a late lunch in Sheridan right now and are going to go see if we can find an elk this evening.
We didn't do nearly a thorough autopsy as we did with the buck antelope as we were in a hurry to get done and get out and see if we can get lucky on an elk tonight.
So consider the information incomplete.

THAT ain't happening!...I don't own a .223

i was making a special "not enough gun edition snubby contender" you won the drawing my brotha.

I would love the opportunity to hunt Cape buffalo some day, but I'll have to pass on that one....

I had a feeling you looked just like George C. Scott!

You're right! I do.......don't I?

1st deer 85 yards (quartering away)

As mentioned earlier, since I was intentionally trying to stay away from the shoulder, and both were quartering shots, each shot was further back from what I would've done normally.
Doe #2 @ 99 yards - Quartering toward me.
Entrance wound pictured. Exit wound was further back obviously.







I would not consider either of the shots Ideal or what I would want to do it since I was trying to stay away from the shoulder.
I would now be very content taking a double lung shot or a double shoulder shot or a quarterling shot while hitting lungs and one shoulder

Good stuff.

Just a thought, imho, at that distance it appears that you have a large entrance wound and that bullet is expanding well, i would just give a thought to what that bullet would do on bone. It may do much much worse. This nearly mirrors alot of what i found on elk with xtps and a 454. Had 5 or six great kills then a few failure that made for some heavy tracking. Sometime give that 180 grain aframe a shot. Itll perform thru anything on a whitetail at any angle with a 357 at that distance. I think u would be really happy with that bullet and honestly 50 yards and in i would hesitate to use it on and elk if i were able to get velocity up over 1500 fps.

Also good on that liver. Thats what killed it. The liver has a good blood supply and with some good damage. They dont live long and in many cases youre better off hitting it solidy that a rear lung shot. As usual, great shooting

Thanks
Just got home a short time ago.
I was able to post pics because Dan was driving
Really felt weird intentionally holding back on the body.
At the same time, the first doe saw me, so I had a limited time to shoot.
Second one was oblivious.
Appreciate the insight.
Another thing we noticed today is one doe was brown and the other was more grey. Side by side made an interesting contrast.
Before this week, all of my revolver hunting has been with two FA 454's. One with 300 XTP's and the other hardcast.
It has been a fun 2.5 days of hunting.
E

From my 357 mag experience. ( mainly a 6" 28 smith and a 8 3/8" 27) and the past years customer experience with the FR with 8-12" barrels and now Ernie's joker length gun I am thinking the bullet choice is between a 158 xtp and a 158 xtp flat point.

Many customers are running the flat point.

The 158 seems to give the best ballance between speed and weight.

I disagree the 180 grain can be ran to 1400 fps (according to Hogdon) and is a better choice at that speed especially at distance

Maybe YOU had new data. There is absolutely NOTHING new here. It may be new to those doing the experimenting, because they are new to hunting with revolvers (which is my impression based on past discussions) and are trying to apply rifle/specialty pistol concepts to revolvers but it is not new. Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith were hunting with the .357 long before any of us were born. This path is well traveled, the fact that 'some' don't have a map is irrelevant. How much data do you need to know that a 158gr .357 bullet at .38Spl velocities is inadequate for big game? How many pictures of wounded critters do you need to know that shooting them at ranges so long you have to account for 50" of drop is irresponsible?



Failures are not subjective at all and your post here is way to simplistic. What is and isn't considered failure is entirely dependent on what the bullet/load 'should' have done. A 35gr .223 would be expected to blow up on impact. A 400gr .450/.400 Woodleigh solid would not. A varmint load that does not expand is a failure. A big game load that explodes is a failure. A cast bullet that shatters is a failure. A jacketed hollowpoint that is shot into a ballistic testing medium (that is tougher than live flesh) and does not expand at all is a failure.

"Consideration as to isolated incidents or continuous occurrences must be taken into account."
How many failures are acceptable when the outcome of a $10,000-$20,000 hunt hangs in the balance?

Steve B with his 357 FR 10" on a guided Texas hunt.

150ish yards. 158 Hornady XTP Flat Point. 2015

Local customer's...cant remember the distance for sure...he actually shot multiple and this was the only pic I had. I know it was over 100 but under 150

Where all these FR lessons learned were intended to go........alot of the lessons learned went into the barrel profiles. There was a lot of RandD to get where we are. But the pic below was what I was going for as an end result of the testing....but sometimes new things come out of those tests

You could've just asked. Of course, some of us tried to tell you. Barrel harmonics have never been an issue in revolvers. Revolver accuracy is all about correct dimensions, lockup, alignment and proper tolerances. Dick Casull figured all this out decades ago.

stumbled on this one while doing some other stuff....same thing just stainless...

These shoot almost as well as the FR system....very little down range accuracy difference.

The major lesson learned was removing anything that would add stress to the barrel. ejector rods and their methods of attachment to the barrel, under lugs, sights, and so on.

then with a gradual taper from rear to front with a stouter section at the rear of a caliber specific length.

A gun is a gun is a gun.....the bullet leaves the barrel the same way....its all just physics

I have not seen this data and even if formerly compiled somewhere. That does not prevent others from gathering additional information and presenting it for all to see. If you don't want to see it, that is your option.



I have pushed and used many bullets passed and for things they were not designed for and to do. The process is fun, informative, and the results not always a failure. Even outside their window of operation and designed result, I have had acceptable performance that would not constitute failure for what I used them for. It's subjective. You would likely say they failed because they did not do what they were supposed to do. I do not. Subjective.

I'm currently not seeing any failures on game from the .357 Mag bullets being used from these Ruger Revolvers. If you have results from use on game, by all means......share them.

I have never paid 10-20K for a hunt. If I was to do so, you can bet I'd be testing whatever bullet I intended to use regardless of what I'd previously heard or read.
Heck.......I do that for free hunts as well. It's all part of the experience.

HLM.....................................Harmonics Lives Matter

I just got caught up on this thread. Been hunting for a week and came back to 79 new replies on this thread alone! Very interesting reading. I don't have the ability to make the kind of long range shots that are being talked about, but to me, it's amazing to see what a revolver can do in the hands of people more gifted than me. And the results are being repeated, regularly. It is changing my mind, and my "idea", of what "limits" really are.

Phil Shoemaker, killed a charging 900 pound brown bear with a 9mm all body shots with 147 grain hard cast Bullets.

hit some big arteries i'm sure for it to die that fast, i'm positive he's glad it worked. the bear didn't. i had a guide on a waterbuff that used an ar15. just gotta get the bullets in there and phil did!

So you increase accuracy by removing one of the locking features of the cylinder? You really think that "adds stress" to the barrel?



Yeah, they're all the same and all that stuff every other REPUTABLE revolver builder is doing is just for grins and giggles? Lineboring, oversized bolts and blocked actions are just so passe.

He had to have, I was surprised at how fast the bear died. Every grizzly that I shot or seen shot reacted to the hit just as Phil's bear did.

How did the Dan Wesson barrel system stack up in the accuracy tests? In my experience the Dan Wesson barreel system gives very consistent accuracy and relieves barrel stress as well. The barrel is tensioned in the shroud.

The dan wesson shoot good. messing with the amount of torque put on the front end nut can greatly change things. with their sleeve/shroud there wasn't enough room to achieve the contour that has worked out the best. Their just a strait barrel inside there as I am sure you have seen before.

From the testing that I have done in a nut shell the barrel needs to be stiffer at the rear and taper forward. of course on the smiths we have to add lockup to the crane. each and every gun requires something a little different in the action dept to bring them to where they need to be.

I dont post about each and every guns group anymore...I let the customers do that in their various social media posts. But across the board...the general accuracy or common practice accuracy work...plus the barrel throat and barrel contour have proven to be consistent in providing exceptional accuracy.

this section below was posted in 2015....this was the test that showed me we were going in the right direction and has been repeated many times since...I normally don't carry calipers to the range so I had to run the entire target to the shop to measure

NIIIIICE, well done and i like that kinda accuracy but, curious if you have tried silhouette models with iron sights like was shot in the eighties.

do you mean putting the sights on these? Or guns that had them?

I hunt with and shoot a few smiths with those....and used some other peoples DW guns. I have a 357 DW with all the barrels through 10" but it has regular sights

I have done exactly 1 FR with irons

i was referring to a precison silhouette sights like the millett sights i have on my FA83 10" instead of a scope system?

yes I have shot some of the big hooded sights with the nice bomar style rear. And i have shot a lot and built a lot of the PPC style guns with the sight ribs.

Most of my hunting I do with iron sights. An N frame is my most used hunting/shooting gun.

The bear wasn't "charging", he was standing still in front of one of his clients when the shooting started.

That's not how I heard it. They woke it up and it came.

Phil was very clear that the bear was charging!

Quoted from his own article!

I think we should argue about it.

My Redhawk with Dan Wesson barrel system


]

Tensioned barrels in my experience are very accurate.

You need to read all of his posts about it when asked Phil stated that the bear circled and then came for them coming between him and his clients heading for the clients.

'Nuff said....

That is not all that Phill stated especially in his posts about the charge on 24 hour and AR web sites.

Nuff said

Posted on 24 Hour campfire by Phil Shoemaker

458Win Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/05/05
Posts: 2941
Loc: AK peninsula
In the past 33 years of living and guiding on the Alaska peninsula from our families homestead I have never had to kill a bear in defense of live or property. DLP as the state refers to it.
Two days ago I was guiding a married couple and we bumped into a bear at close range on our way to the fishing stream. We yelled and it ran but circled around and then charged. The couple were 10 or 12 feet behind me and the bear came out of the brush so close it was within 3 feet of my clients before I could shoot. They both intentionally fell to the ground just before I shot the bear behind the shoulder. It immediately spun and I continued shooting, all the while keeping the position of my clients in perspective. After six quick hits the bear turned and ran 20 yards and died .

We were planning on a quick couple hours of fishing and rather than packing my normal S&W 44 Mtn gun I was packing a S&W 3953 dao auto with 147 gr Buffalo Bore 9mm ammo.

Edited by 458Win (07/23/16)
_________________________
Phil Shoemaker - Alaska Master Guide
NRA Benefactor
Alaska Hunter Education Instructor
http://www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com

Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads..._S#Post11326672

I didn't make it up that is Phil's own words

I think that was just getting to the truth. Thats not an argument! Articles misquote. Editors edit what you write and sometimes screw up important details. What he posted is basically from his own mouth, unless its an email written by hillary clinton. Then its made up by Putin.

Good Lord.......it was a JOKE!

So was mine!

I took a round about way to bring in hillary here

I did pick up on that plug.

Don't you go insulting my no good horse by calling it a hillary!

How many times are you going to post this? How many times are you going to ignore his clarifications on web sites? When someone on AR stated that the bear was not charging Phill stated that he knew when a bear charges and that this bear definitely charged.

Do I need to find that post and quote it as well?
Phill is not a professional writer and his words were such as some may take exception in the little short story about the incident. You are proving to be quite obtuse.

Sez the pot to the kettle......

Hope, because I read his posts and his clarification, something you obviously have not done.

Not sure where you came up with this but here is the write. Up that Phil wrote for American Hunter

"I have been guiding brown bear hunters and fishermen and bear photographers from our homestead within Becharof National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for 33 years and have had numerous close encounters with bears. Until now, I have never had to shoot an unwounded bear to protect either myself or clients, but the other week an event occurred and my good fortune changed. When it happened, I was fully aware of what was going on and how big the bear was. I also managed to stay aware of where my clients were, even when the bear was directly between us. The woman I was guiding said that while she did not remember smelling the bear?s breath, it was close enough to her face that it could have bitten her!

I have killed enough bears to know how important shot placement can be, even with large-bore rifles. I was well aware of the limitations of my 9mm pistol, even with Buffalo Bore ammo. I was aiming for a vital area with each shot; because it all took place between 6 and 8 feet, they were not far off. But hitting the head and brain of a highly animated and agitated animal is a difficult shot.

The two photos shown here tell a pretty good story by themselves. The secondary photo (embedded at the bottom of this story) was taken from the point where the charging bear first erupted from the brush. I am on the left and Larry, my fishing client, is on the right. The bear was within 2 feet or less of Larry and his wife when I shot it. You can see the dead bear to the left of Larry. The main photo (embedded to the right) shows Larry and me with the dead bear and shows its size.

Larry and his wife were fishing with me, and because we were going to a small stream I had fished before, which had numerous large male brown bears, I decided to take my Smith & Wesson 3953 DAO 9mm, rather than the S&W 629 .44 Mag. Mountain Gun I have carried for the past 25 years, as the larger boars are usually less of a problem than sows with cubs.

Before we reached the stream, while we were walking through dense brush and tall grass, we heard a growl and deep ?woof? of a bear approximately 6 feet to our right (behind me in the secondary photo). We had been talking loudly but must have startled a sleeping bear. It sounded like it made a movement toward us, and I shouted loudly and the bear ran back through the brush to the right in the photo. Within 15 seconds, we could hear it growling and charging through the dense brush from the opposite side.

I had my pistol out by then, and the bear first appeared from where the photographer in photo No. 2 was standing. It went straight for my clients; Larry and his wife fell backwards in the deep grass. She said the bear?s face was close enough to hers that it could have bitten her!

The bear was highly agitated and standing within 3 feet of my clients when I decided I could take a shot without endangering them.

My first shot was at its neck, and then it began growling and spinning toward the impact. I wanted to hit the head but the bear was moving so fast I simply began shooting each time I could hit a vital area. I hit it six times before it turned to run off, and my seventh shot was into its pelvis area as it ran. When it dropped within 6 feet of the last shot, I checked my pistol and found I had only a single round left in the chamber so decided against walking in and finishing it.

My pistol was loaded with Buffalo Bore 9mm +P Outdoorsman 147-grain FN hard-cast loads that have a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps. I had previously tested, compared and proven such loads with my .357 and .44 mags., and I was convinced they would work."


http://www.handgunhunt.com/forum/ubbthre...at&fpart=17&q=1

From what I read of that, the bear had charged them for sure. But as it reads, he was done charging, and was standing still when shots were fired. I think that's what Rod is getting at. The next sentence after the highlighed part says the bear was standing 3' away from the clients, and that's when he felt like be could shoot safely. I don't think he shot while the bear was active in its charge. That's how I read it anyway.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think both sides are right. There was a charge, and the bear was shot afterwards while it was standing in front of the clients. Anyway, off to the range and some more time with the flintlock!

If the bear was no longer charging, then that makes it a bluff charge and with 38 years of experience with these bears I'm sure Phil knows the difference.

Yeah, I agree, and think there is a difference. There is a bluff charge, a charge, and then the physical attack. From what I read, the bear never hurt the clients, so the attack never happened. The bear was shot while it wasn't moving. He had his pistol out as soon as he heard the noise, but didn't fire at that point. Only when there was clearance between the bear and the clients. To me, that says there was no attack. No physical harm to the clients pretty much solidifies it to me. For whatever reason, the bear stopped short of attacking after putting on a seemingly full on charge. Doesn't happen often, but for some reason, I believe that's what happened here.

Just my interpretation. Nothing more. I'm bowing out now.

Ding, ding, ding. Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!

If you aren't bitten or gored it just didn't happen, appears to be the logic here.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11241792/7

Not entirely, but there were some good points made.

Choosing to focus on Phil's choice of a word in one place only and ignoring not useing that word in multiple posts, being the good point I assume.

If the bear was not charging, then why wasn't Phil sighted by F&G for shooting bear?

This thread has gone a bit off topic, don't y'all think?

Yeah it has but i liked the part where we got into super troopers. One of my favorite movies

I started to insert my favorite quote and then realized it wouldn't fly. T`was the part where the police addressed the faux bear-fornicator.

I got this reply from Phil,

Not my concern.

"The bear was highly agitated and standing within 3 feet of my clients when I decided I could take a shot without endangering them."

I don't doubt that there was a charge by a bear at some point but that bear was not charging at the time of the first shot as you continue to suggest. If that 900 pound grizzly had been in the midst of a full on charge (your words) with adrenalin on high and a target it it's sights the end result would have been different, IMO. All three of those people would not have emerged unscathed and if the only man in posession of their "protection" had been in it's path they all may have been killed. They were lucky, very lucky. To suggest otherwise makes no sense.

Meanwhile big game hunting outfitters across the Alaskan frontier are trading in their big bore Guide Guns and 870's for short barreled single stack 9mm pistols........

Ya, a little ;-)

I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong, but you are. I had a high regard for you but you have proven me to have been incorrect you are simply obtuse.

The reply I just received from Phil states extremely clear that the bear charged

Well i guess the guy there was wrong and the implication that posting story was to assert that we would be better off w a 9mm than 45/70 was not made anymore than ernie was saying to pack up your 460's and just use a 357 for long distance handgun hunting. Its just an account of what happened and sparked some good discussions and i for one feel better about it when i hike with my glock 20 stoked with underwood 220's

Also, i dont think razor dobbs didnt post his 10mm buff to say ph's should turn in their 458 lotts either. It does, however, give me a good starting point when a ph has doubts about me using a 454 for buff.

Not my words Phil's words. Phil said the bear was charging and has 38 years experience with bears.

HOW MUCH EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE. This is a pertinent question as to your opinions validity.

Once more the repiy from Phil today,

_________________________________________________________________

#4592653 - Today at 12:04 PM Re: Bear With 9mm
458Win Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/05/05
Posts: 2942
Loc: AK peninsula
I havn't written up my story and the one the NRA published was not written by me, although it was written like it was. Scott Olmstead called me after I had written Tim Sundles about how the ammo had performed and asked me a couple questions, which I answered and then I sent him two photos.
It was a fairly accurate report though.

I don't know how many bear charges the guy you are argueing with has ever been involved in but the bear seemed to be agressive when we startled it in the heavy brush, it circled around downwind and then most definately charged !!!! It soundls like the guy is saying that since it had stopped it wasn't charging ? So once it is mauling you the charge has stopped ?

What difference does it make ? A big boar had circled, charged and was literally standing over my clients and highly agitated.
_________________________
Phil Shoemaker - Alaska Master Guide
NRA Benefactor
Alaska Hunter Education Instructor
http://www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com

Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.

Jwp, if I may... I don't think there is any disagreement with you that the bear charged. Not trying to stir the pot here, but I think it is also clear the bear was standing still when the shots were fired. Both of these "events" happened. I think that's all that is being said. Rod is just talking about the events after the charge. I'm not going to speak for him, but I don't think he is arguing that point. Just "when" the shots were fired. Both of you are correct in the points you are making. Phil's last sentence is what Rod is referring to. The bear was "literally standing over my clients".

Oh yeah, forgot.... I bowed out.

Don't forget the "highly agitated" words. I think if you read evert thing that he posted, he is minimizing the situation. He implies the adrenaline rush had dissipated and implies that the outcomme would have been different. I have not the experience with bear that Phil has but the experience that I do have leads me to believe the bear lost the whereabouts of the clients when they hit the ground.

Let's. Not forget this post that was rentersted multiple time

Keyword "charging"

The bear was not charging, it was standing when first shot.

Big difference.

Why can you not acknowledge this fact, jwp? That's all I ask. If you just removed the word charging from your post it would be accurate. But as it is written it gives a false impression of the reality of the situation, and therefore is misleading.

Time to get this thread back on track now ;-)

Big difference how? Bear was highly agitated and full of adrenaline rush.

Again give your bear experience as to give some credibility to your assertion.

Since you do not answer about your experience with bears ilogic seem to dictate you have none.

The big difference that you claim is to minimize the situation.

s4s4u, keep ignoring these words, they are Phil's words.

Choot um

So, how bout those World Series games.....

Baseball sucks!!!

BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!
You're just all about arguing aren't ya!

Am not!!!

Yeah, well.... 180gr HST's suck!! How bout THEM apples??!!

I don't like apples.

I despise the fruit you like! It isn't any good regardless of your opinion, and good luck proving that you like it cause it's good. It won't happen!

baseball is boring all the time, playing is ok, but nothing more painful than long spring training practice. i honestly would rather watch bowling.

That is just hilarious.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

That one looks pretty darn nice. I prefer the shorter version and only the barrel being two-tone.

That, or all stainless.

6.5" barrel plus brake.

Everything is black. Minus barrel and brake

You're gonna entice me yet.

Ha

That looks like something Terminator... I mean Governor Terminator, would carry!!

i build them in a assembly line fashion....but if I had to do one strait through....16 working hours

Man you got that right.

Can something similar be done in a Blackhawk 357 ? Not sure how the ejector rod would work with the barrel shroud.

Cyl pin and ejector are in the way

the 10" version weighs 6-8oz more than a factory 6" gp100.

this one is a 6.5" and I did not weigh it but I would estimate it weighs close to the same as a factory GP.

shot free recoil or very close to it.

158 XTP max load

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJ0F0g9ugs

211 yard texas deer....by a customer.....DRT

Post above was a deer harvested two-three days ago

Ya ready to do a 454 ruger?

He doesn't do the FR conversion on the Super Redhawk's.
Does Ruger make a 454 Casull in the Redhawk?

Nice shot!

No, but folks have been known to swap the SRH 454 cylinder into the 45 Colt RH.

Like this:



Snyd has one as well that is considerably nicer than this one.

Nice!

Ive got a 45 colt redhawk that ive been waiting to turn i to something worth shooting.

Looks like Spam here (Chris Welbert)