128 
let and strikes with 2 tons force, so you 
can have some idea of the hardness of his 
skull. 
He measured 8 feet 6 from tip to tip, 
over 9 feet across the fore legs, and the 
nails on his paws were 6 inches long. 
J. Irwin. 

BIG MAN—BIG GUN. 
I can safely call myself an old hunter, 
as I began in ’44, when 17 years old, to 
kill, from jacksnipe to grizzlies, and have 
killed game from Texas to California, etc. 
Therefore, permit me a few notes. One 
writer says: “I noticed with considerable 
amusement what Grizzly Pete, of Buffalo 
river, had to say of the .45-70 (an entire- 
ly obsolete arm) as against all small bores 
and particularly the .30-30 and .30-40.” 
I claim that Grizzly Pete is entitled to 
his opinion, and to “put yourself in his 
place’’—correct. 
If a man’s gun suits lim, what more 
does he want? As to the weight of a 
gun, some men are far more powerful 
than others, and can hold a heavier gun 
steadiest. As to ammunition, many hun- 
ters unnecessarily: load themselves with 
it, therefore, the smaller the bore the 
more they can carry. Old hunters like 
Grizzly Pete and I would start out for ° 
a day’s hunt with but a few cartridges 
and the size don’t count. 
One writer says: “I take it, the only 
gun of which he can speak from experi- 
ence, is the .45-70.”’ Suppose it is. Is not 
his opinion of value as to that gun? Can 
it be said that the .45-70 has not suffi- 
cient killing power? 
The main point with hunters is to get 
a gun they can hold on game. Some men 
require a heavy gun, others do not. Per- 
sonally I know this to be a fact. With a 
powerful man after he gets used to his 
gun a few pounds more don’t count. I 
prefer a heavy rifle, so heavy that few 
men would care to pack it all day. I can 
shoot it straighter, hold it steadier. I 
have plenty of muscle to carry it—then 
why should this be a subject for ridicule 
—especially since I get more game than 
the average hunter. 
As to ammunition, I would prefer to 
suit it to the game to be hunted. In the 
early days of California I tackled a griz- 
zly with my old Kentucky rifle and ex- 
tremely small ball. I had a close call 
for it. On deer it was good enough. I 
would sooner use a .45-70 on all large 
game than have the meat unnecessarily 
torn by a .30-30 or .30-40. Still I consider 
the .45-70 rather large. 
A while ago I went on a hunt with a 
party of 6. For the hunt of a week I 
took 20 cartridges, some of the party had 
RECREATION. — 
350 cartridges. None less than 200. When 
we got to the hunting ground they load- 
ed down with heavy belts of cartridges— 
and the first days, one might have thought 
there was an Injun skirmish on hand. I 
let the outfit go their way. I went mine, 
in an opposite direction. At night it 
was “Why in h— did you shoot at me?” 
“Why you wasn’t within half a _ mile. 
What are you talking about?” The fact 
was they had .30-30’s and .30-40’s and it 
was only a miracle some one wasn’t 
killed. The result of the hunt was 5 
deer killed by them, badly mangled. I 
killed 3 with my old Henry! all in fine 
condition. 
Now then, whose gun was the best? It 
is not gun alone, it is the man behind it. 
Many years ago I went down to Ari- 
zona when Apaches were bad—though 
some became good. I was then preju- 
diced in favor of my old Kentucky rifle, 
and no better gun was ever made for its 
range. No doubt it would cause some 
of your writers “amusement,” if they saw 
the small ball it carried. Yet in my hands 
it even killed grizzlies. And the “‘Greas- 
ers” learned to know its deadly nature. 
But I wanted a long range gun to shoot 
a mile or 2 or less, and went to a good 
old gunsmith I knew and told him my 
wants. He said, “I’ve got the very gun 
you want,” and brought me a Sharp, that 
had been made to order, short and very 
heavy. I don’t know the caliber, but the 
round ball was % ounce. One slug 3% 
ounce, the other 1% ounces. I took it out 
of town and tried it against a stump. To 
my surprise this was bored through. I 
didn’t know what to make of it then. 
Sometimes I think some of the balls are 
going yet. I bought it. 
On the way out at Soda lake I meta 
company of soldiers going to Arizona. 
One morning the Indians ran out in front 
of the camp, perhaps 500 or 600 yards 
away. The soldiers popped at them 
without effect. I laid the old gun on a 
rock, took as good* aim as I could, at 
the fellow, disagreeably slapping a cer- 
tain part of his person, and to my sur- 
prise, and all of us, down he _ went. 
Which was the best gun?  After- 
ward I found the gun a holy terror to 
shoot, and a better gun for ordinary game 
I could not wish. Yet many a man could 
not have carried it all day. 
I have read much valueless mat- 
ter. Let us have fairer criticism 
and learn why one gun or a cef- 
tain ammunition is better than any 
other, put 1 do not see anything in favor 
of either that unnecessarily destroys good 
meat, or makes it unsafe for another hun-— 
ter to be any where in the vicinity of the 
shooter. Most game is killed within 100 

