186 
regularity, accuracy and expense considered. 
I found immediately that the ‘‘toe-in” 
crimp on my .25-35 shells soon made the 
muzzle of the shell ragged, and have made a 
die to resize the muzzle only, holding the bullet 
friction tight. This may not be sufficient for 
tubular magazine guns, where the recoil might 
crowd the bullet back, but in a single shot it is 
all right. This idea, together with the use of 
the No. 9 primer, will keep your shells in as 
good shape as any black-powder gun you ever 
saw, bottle-neck or straight. Then, too, I 
do not resize the whole shell except after about 
7 to 8 reloads, my belief being that the less 
compression and expansion the shell undergoes 
the better for the shell. When the shell begins 
to stick the least bit it is time enough to resize. 
Mr. Pinkerton, of Dixon, IIl., states in 
January RECREATION that the .25-35’s are all 
good guns, but have an undesirable trick. 
As these columns are for comment, I think he 
should state what the ‘‘trick’”’ is. My personal 
experience is- that I could only criticise the 
breaking of shells, and the No. 9 primer men- 
tioned stops that. 
For woodchuck shooting I cannot see why 
any one should want a .38-55 high-power gun, 
unless because the big bullet makes a miss 
less likely—they certainly are no surer to kill 
than the .25-35, which any one will admit after 
seeing the .25-35 do business. The flat trajec- 
tory is of great value in woodchuck shooting, 
and makes very little allowance for variable 
ranges necessary. 
With my gun, the diameter of the No. 3 
Lyman bead gives sufficient elevation or de- 
pression for all ordinary ranges, and until I 
used the gun some time I was inclined to allow 
too much for the longer ranges. I have sighted 
with full sight, 100 yards point blank, which 
will cover most shots at woodchuck. 
For those who have this gun in the repeater, 
and want a hot medium range load, use the 
.25-20-86 metal patch bullet with 12 to 18 
grains of Lightning. Mr. Newton, of Buffalo, 
has written me about some fine work with this 
bullet, up to 500 yards, and while I have not 
shot it at that distance, I have shot it at 200 
and 300 yards successfully. 
If any want to experiment with short-range 
loads, try Dr. Hudson’s alloy (10-10-80) and 
Marksman powder. This is fine. In short, 
before condemning the .25-35, or even ques- 
tioning their suitability for all average shooting, 
get one and thrash it out. 
Syracuse, N. Y. H. B. JOHNSON. 

Some Shotgun Sense 
For several months I have been interested 
in reading what different writers have had to 
RECREATION 
say regarding their ideal rifle, shotgun or 
revolver. Some letters have been instructive, 
and other amusing. Nevertheless, if they con- 
sider the subject for fifty years, I don’t believe 
they will decide on one universally acceptable 
make of shotgun, rifle or revolver. 
I don’t believe there ever will be a time 
when we shall have one uniform caliber for 
rifles and revolvers, or one gauge for shotguns. 
Neither will there ever be a uniform load that 
will suffice for all occasions or conditions. To 
be sure, there are many happy mediums and 
fair averages, but what is satisfactory in one 
loca ity will not do in another. 
The armies of the whole world have rifles 
almost alike, but there are differences. The 
State laws of our Union are almost alike, but 
they differ slightly one from another. Our 
shotguns and shotgun ammunition are similar, 
but are not exactly alike. Thus we see that 
these differences, small as they seem, distin- 
guish these objects and conditions. As long as 
men are not exactly alike, they will not be able 
to agree on any one thing. 
That is the reason we have so many makes 
of high-class guns and ammunition. Really, if 
you come right to the point, there is little to 
choose between two first-class, standard 
shotguns of equal value. I have known men to 
use L. C. Smiths, then switch to Parkers. 
They claimed they saw a difference, but their 
records did not show it. I am speaking now of 
standard guns of same gauge, weight, length of 
barrel and choke. To me the difference seems 
to be as much in the ammunition as in the gun. 
Also, a man wants to stick long enough to 
one gun to master it. I have seen hunters 
make good bags with an old gun that I could 
not use at all. Then, again, I cannot shoot as 
well with any other gun as with my own. That 
is no reason, though, why my gun is better than 
any other, because other hunters have failed 
miserably in using mine. 
We know that what is one man’s meat is 
another man’s poison. We have all heard of 
that old muzzle-loading rifle that grandpa used, 
with which he could kill tree squirrels or chip- 
munks farther than we can with our rifles 
to-day. We have all, perhaps, seen the oldest, 
rustiest, scrawniest gun in a hunting party 
of high-priced guns do the best execution, 
judged by the size of the bag. 
We must admit that the old shotguns and 
rifles in the hands of our pioneers were a great 
argument for good or evil, as the case happened 
to be, yet I am not willing, in addition, to 
admit that the’ weapons of their day were 
superior to ours. The difference lies in the 
fact that every man knew his gun thoroughly, 
and how to manage it; knew just how much 
