GUNS AND AMMUNITION. 



463 



jectory of the .22 long rifle bullet as 15 1-6 

 feet at 500 yards. I think he suggested 20 

 feet. It is certainly amazing how accurate 

 both this and the .22 short are at long 

 ranges. X. Y. Z. 



STILL SATISFIED WITH THE .30-30. 



Boston, Mass. 

 Editor Recreation: 



I have expressed my views on the sub- 

 ject of the .30-30 several times, and now 

 wish to tell my last experience. 



In September, '99, I hunted in New 

 Brunswick with my Winchester .30-30, se- 

 curing one moose and one caribou. I hit 

 each but once; the moose, under the left 

 ear, smashing the lower jaw, the bullet 

 lodging in t^he heavy bone under the right 

 antler, cutting the jugular vein on the way. 

 He went but 30 feet after being hit. The 

 caribou was struck in the neck, the bullet 

 breaking it, but not passing through. He 

 fell without taking a step. Each animal 

 was in agony after falling, and my guide 

 put them out of misery with a bullet 

 through the heart, at close quarters. 



Last year a friend told me the .30-30 was 

 not powerful enough. He used a Martini- 

 Henry express, and did not feel that it had 

 any excess of power. He has since, in 

 print, described a moose killing, wherein 

 he put 6 bullets into the animal before it 

 succumbed. Whether it was the first or the 

 sixth shot that inflicted the mortal wound 

 he could not say. The fact that 5 struck, 

 with no indications of paralysis, makes me 

 skeptical as to the claim that a large bul- 

 let, driven by a heavy charge of powder, 

 will stun an animal, if it fails to inflict a 

 mortal wound. 



A .30-30 bullet, rightly placed, is ample. 

 I was expressing this view to Major Hin- 

 man a few days since. He smiled and 

 said, "Yes, so is a .22." Granted. I know 

 a gentleman who killed a large caribou 

 last fall with a .22. He had started for the 

 spring, and picked up the .22 in case he 

 should see a grouse. At a bend in the 

 path, 20 to 25 yards away, stood the cari- 

 bou. He fired 2 shots and killed it. But 

 neither he, nor any other hunter, would 

 consequently say the .22 is all that is 

 needed for big game. One must have a 

 rifle that will be equally effective at 10 

 times the distance, and with trajectory flat 

 enough to be practically point blank. 



I believe a hunter should have the larg- 

 est caliber and highest power gun he 

 is capable of carrying all day and able to 

 hold true on the mark when firing. I find 

 my maximum in the .30-30- There is no 

 use of anyone's crying it down. Its effec- 

 tiveness has been conclusively proved by 

 others as well as by me. Some have killed 

 game with high power guns, and the post 



mortem satisfied them that one of I< ss 

 power would have been ineffective. 

 That is all right. Examination of the 

 wound in my moose satisfied me that a 

 higher power gun would probably have 

 ruined the head for mounting. I was glad 

 there was no excess of power. 



There is nof a pattern, model or make of 

 hunting rifle on the market but what has 

 been successful enough to prove its capa- 

 bilities as a killer. Let the man select the 

 one that fits his physique best, learn how 

 to use it, then devote his attention to the 

 art of putting himself within range of 

 whatever he wishes to kill. 



It is not the rifle alone that gets the 

 game, but a combination of any good rifle 

 with a competent man behind it. When a 

 hunter fails to get game, using any modern 

 hunting rifle, perhaps he is not to blame; 

 there may be some disconcerting circum- 

 stances; but there is one thing of which 

 he can be sure — the fault is not in the 

 gun. No practical man would go into the 

 woods without having tested his rifle, made 

 sure the sights were perfectly aligned, and. 

 if not an expert, practiced with it suffi- 

 ciently so that, at 100 yards, he can at 

 least group a series of 10 shots within an 

 8-inch circle. W. G. Reed. 



1HE BEST GUN. 



Nevada City, Cal. 

 Editor Recreation: 



I am satisfied that each of our Ameri- 

 can guns is the best gun, if you know 

 how to load it properly. To bolster that 

 opinion I will narrate my experience with 

 scatter guns, covering a period of 36 years. 



My first gun was a Kentucky rifle, which 

 I loaded with shot and wadded with news- 

 paper. With it I killed mallards at 100 

 yards, more or less, and usually shut both 

 eyes while pulling the trigger. The next 

 gun I fell heir to was a 10 bore, W. C. 

 Scott & Sons; imported at a cost of $150. 

 The owner, finding it would not shoot so 

 far as his rifle, hung it up in his log house 

 to rust. Finally it was given to me on 

 the supposition that it was harmless. After 

 having scoured it out with ashes I thought 

 it the best gun in the world; though, to 

 be candid, I did little damage with it save 

 to blow a hole through the side of the 

 house and wound my only retriever. With 

 that gun I was partial to big shot, usually 

 No. 3, and leather wads on the powder. 



Powder was $1 a pound and shot 2$ 

 cents, and I had to get a season's sport 

 out of $2 worth of ammunition, not men- 

 tioning the G. D. caps. By varying the 

 load I could do either flock or single bird 

 shooting. I have never since had tin- 

 same amount of sport with 3 tinn :l 

 much ammunition, In those days the MiS- 



