a 
106 
8-bore shotgun, and with the former how many T kill, Pre- 
suming that no slur was intended, and that he desires infor- 
mation, I will say that an 8-bore shotgun is a weapon that I 
never owned, handled, or fred in my life, and that in my 
present collection of six firearms a 12-cauge 8-pound pun is 
the only representative of the ‘‘scatter gun,” the rest being 
from .22 to .45 caliber and no two alike, and that I hunt 
ducks about as often with a small ealiber (.22 or .82) rifle as 
with a shotgun; not so successfully, if numbers be the 
criterion of success, but when occasionally one is stopped 
when doing his best to escape, that one affords me more 
satisfaction than a carload of them killed with the shutgun. 
Pinnated grouse and sage hens I have so far hunted with a 
shotgun, and often have had the pleasure of a whole day 
spoiled by having a badly crippled bird to get away to die 
by inches. The ruffed grouse is not plentiful enough here to 
hunt specially. Occasionally we find it in the mountains 
When hunting deer. Then (‘‘Wells’s” good opinion of my 
sportsmanlike characteristics to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing) J kill it or miss it with the rifle. 
And now my “logic being deficient,” and it most certainly 
is, if ““Wells’s” “logic” be good, how does it follow that if 
“my argument was good as to decr if was good as to all 
game?” Does the contrary proposition hold good that because 
a shotgun is the most suitable for quail, a shotgun is also the 
most suitable weapon for deer? Does it follow that because 
au ordinary rifle shot can readily hit a deer he can as easily 
hit a grouse? Does ‘‘Wells’s” “‘logic” teach him that a rifle- 
man could hit a running elephant or a flying humming bird 
with equal ease? 
By the same “‘logic,” because No. 10 shot is large enough 
for quail it is large enough for getizzlies? a position even 
“Wells’s” subtle ability would hardly maintain in the field, 
however successfully he might do so in the forensic arena, 
Does ‘‘Wells” follow out the teachings of his own ‘‘logic” 
and attempt to hunt buffalo with his 12-bore shotgun charged 
with its regulation quail charge? Does he pursue with his 
fayorite weapon any game that will “strike back” if not at 
once dispatched! Isn't it only the timid and harmless that 
is misused at his hands? Then if my argument applied to 
deer ‘‘should be held as good for all game,” so should hisas 
applied to birds be held as equally good for large and dan- 
gerous game, 
In the case cited, ‘‘Wells” argues that I was not skiliful 
enough to-stop the deer with my favorite weapon until it had 
tun amile. If is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to confess 
that 1 was not the man ‘‘who sayed the day.” Had he 
looked more carefully he would have seen that the ritle nsed 
wis a Henry, burning but 28 grains of powder, which he 
doubtless knows is entirely too light for mule deer. Had 
my favorite (a ,45-75) or any .45-caliber with 70 to 90 grains 
of powder, been used, the deer, struck as he was, would not 
have made a second jump. The,case was simply cited to 
contrast the work of the two weapons. The shotgun cham- 
pion took a cool, deliberate, standing shot at not over 50 
yards. The rifleman, using 4 light arm under unfayorable 
citcumstances, for the deer was 100 yards away and jump- 
ing, grassed him and gave him such a wound that he couid 
be easily followed. The animal! died within fifteen minutes 
from the effect of the bullet, whereas he would have been 
lost to us and have been a week dying from the effect of the 
buckshot. 
In conclusion, let me reiterate that white a buckshot or a 
duckshot may, under especially favorable circmstances, 
produce death quicker than a wound from a large rifle bullet 
in Jess vital parts, still the chances for immediate killing by 
the latter are about ten to one in its favor. For humanity’s 
sake, then, 1f for no other reason, it alone ought to be used 
on deer. The skill necessary to handle the rifle successfully 
on moving objects is a never failing source of pride snd 
pleasure, and would alone more than compensate for its 
acquirement and for discarding the shotgun on large game, 
I sincerely hope that ‘‘Wells” will resume his rifle practice, 
regain his former skill, hereafter kill his venison only with 
the bullet, pay mea visit if he ever comes to the Pacific 
coast, thank me for pointing out the error of his ways, live 
to a ripe old age, and contribute an article every week to 
Fornmst AND aioe: as long as I may be a reader of tts 
columns. 
And now allow me to suggest to Mr. “Backwoods” that 
he ought not to have returned to the settlements until the 
balsainic odors and pure ozone had reinvigorated his liver, re- 
duced his spleen and dispersed his severe attack of indiges- 
tion from which he is evidently suffering. 1 constvientiously 
attacked what I believed to be a most brutal and barbarous 
practice, which it seems is a favorite “sport” of his, and he 
rushes into print with personal innuenda and vituperation in 
reply. 
“O. many a shaft at random sent 
Finds mark the archer little meant.” 
His flutter shows how well the “‘shatt struck home.” 
‘Let the galled jade wince.” If he has any good reasons 
“for the faith that isin him,” let him present them and not 
his estimate of me personally, which I am sure does not in- 
terest the readers of Forusr AND STREAM, and certainly 
gives me less concern than “‘the idle wind which 1 respect 
not.” Had I advocated his position and used a $3.50 Zulu,” 
I should have received his entire approbation, My present 
address is not Rome, and were il, one of their customs I 
should never adopt. 
Tf ‘the is the noblest Roman of them all,” I shal] not hurry 
to get there. “‘l bad rather beadog, and bay the moon, than 
such a Roman.” Prutp, 
Fort Bipwext, Cal., Aug. 9, 1854. 
“Speak of measlam. Nothing extennate nor set down aught in 
malice.”'—Othelto. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
T understood ‘‘Piute’s” position to be that the rifle was the 
only proper weapon for deer shooting, and he who used any 
other was guilty of barbarism. I also understood him to 
found his remarkable conclusion upon the reasons which he 
offered for its support. Haying used the barbarous weapon 
which he denounced, and feeling sure that his logic was 
faulty, I chose to say so through the columns of the Fornsr 
AND STRHAM. I endeavored to state the argument fairly, 
and I did so, if 1 am capable of comprehending the meaning 
of English sentences. The only question, as I thought, and 
still think, was whether a rifle was the only weapon | please 
italicise the words which I underscore] which a sportsman 
could legitimately use in deer shooting. ‘‘Piute” alleges 
that itis. Ireply that itis not. While I do not doubt that 
one may very properly use the rifle who chooses to do so, 1 
deny, most emphatically, that 1 am to be regarded as un- 
sportsmanlike and barbarous if I choose to use a shotgun, 
The difference between ‘‘Piute”’ and ‘‘Wells” is this: 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
“Piute” denounces ‘Wells” and all who do as he does as 
being guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct and barbarous 
usage. ‘‘Wells’” makes no such charge against “Piute” or 
those who may prefer the rifle, but endeavors to show that 
the reasoning by whieh ‘'Piute’ upholds his position is not 
sound, and defends his own practices against what he re- 
garded as a wanton and unjustifiable assault. 
_ I did not object to any man’s using a rifle for game shoot- 
ing if he preferred to do so, whether the game be buffalo, 
deer, turkey, geese, ducks, Bob White, rail or bobolinks. 
Nothing in my communication to which reference is made 
in the ForEst AND StREAM of the 2ist, by “Cap Lock,” 
“Tramp” and “OC. A. R.” warrants the construction made, I 
repeat that if “Pinte” and his supporters choose to use a 
rifle, even “‘to crush a butterfly or to brain a gnat,” he may do 
so for aught I care or for aught I have said. I shall not 
imitate the bad example set me by denouncing such 
““‘usance” as showing a want of feeling, or a vidlation of the 
laws of genuine sportsmanship. But when any one exhibits 
the Phariseeism of ‘‘desling damnation round the land” on 
all who choose to exercise the right to dissent from their 
standard of propriety, ‘‘Wells” will not hesitate to enter his 
protest against the needless denunciation, but if necessary, in 
his judgment, say to one and all of his assailants: 
‘Lay on, Macduff, 
And thrashed be he who first cries, hold, enough|’* 
“Cap Lock” will take no offense if I say to him that a 
legitimate inference from his language in paragraph three, 
of his artiele dated Aug. 10, is that he thinks grouse, Bob 
White, quail and woodcock ought to be shot exclusively 
with the rifle. 1s if possible he would mean to convey such 
an idea? Now, neither he nor any one would get much 
game of that kind with such a weapon. Doubtless grouse, 
when eating berries or sitting on limbs, can be easily killed 
with a rifle, but when on the wing ‘‘scant and small would 
the booty prove.” This would make the trap and the snare, 
if not sportsmanlike, necessary to supply all persons who 
are not exceptionally expert rifle shots with any game at all, 
Surely “Cap Lock” was unfortunate in the use of his lan- 
suage. 
He tells us that hounding deer is “‘barbaric and unsports- 
manlike.” How? Is hounding foxes ‘‘barbaric and un- 
sportsmanlike?” He will not say that. Then why is the 
use of dogs in hunting deer ‘‘barbaric and unsportsmanlike?” 
Is ‘‘shining” a deer’s eyes at night and shooting him standing 
with a rifle civilized and sportsmanlike? Is approaching a 
deer al. feed among the lily padsin a boat civilized and 
sportsmanlike? Pray let him tell us the distinction, and not 
content himself with a “tweedle dum and tweedle dee” 
answer. What better chance of escape has a deer under 
such circumstances than when Heeing hefore a hound in 
thick woods, with the probabilities largely in his favor, that 
he will not come within gunshot, or even in sight of the 
“barbarian” who is standing in glorious hope? How many 
deer could *‘Cap Lock” hit with his rifle in the woods, with 
thick undergrowth, when on a full run? In an open country 
like the prairies, or the pine woods of Florida, many score 
of deer can be killed by stalking, or ‘‘still hunting,” as we 
eallit, A gentleman who resided about three miles from 
Martin’s Ferry told me, some years ago, that he had killed 
175 in that style of ‘‘sportsmanlike” hunting in two seasons. 
l tried it with a party of six, of whom he was one, in his 
neighborhood, using the ‘barbaric’ dog, and though we 
saw scores of deer, no man eyen got a shot. Now ‘Cap 
Lock” thinks hounding ‘“‘barbarous’” and *‘Wells” does not 
think so, Having an equal right to form an opinion, I say 
to him, that stalking in this section would give no addition 
to the larder, and even with hounds, which have been used 
“from the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to 
the contrary,” five deer are started and escape to one which 
is shot at, much less wounded or killed, and we have now 
as Many deer as- can probably be found in the Adirondacks, 
where the humane practice is recommended and observed of 
stealthily approaching a deer in his ‘'secure hour” while 
feeding among the lily pads. 
And now a word or two with my friend ‘‘Trump.”” Iam 
not sufficiently acquainted with that branch of surgery 
which treats of the Viulwus sclopett or gunshot wounds, to 
discuss the question whether the ws medtcatrix nature is 
more effective in healing a wound made by a ball thrown 
by asmoothbore ora rifled gun. But I have known deer, 
as well as he, to escape the pan of the hunter, to add to the 
enjoyment of buzzards and other scavengers, because the 
wound given by the shot or ball was not immediately de- 
structive. If this demonstrates that a rifle is the only weapon 
which ought to be used for deer, I respectfully submit that 
it is equally good when applied to small game. If ‘‘Drump” 
chooses to use such a weapon, I shall not object. I simply 
prefer a shotgun. 
I come now to *‘C. A. R.” If he carefully read my article, 
all I have to say that either he or I was exceedingly unfor- 
tunate; he in comprehending what I wrote, or I in the use 
of language to convey my ideas. ‘There was no “‘Lhunder- 
bolt of wrath,” ot any wrath at all in what I wrote. There 
was no complaint of ‘‘Piute” “because he is an advocate of 
the rifle in hunting.” But there was a complaint because 
“Pinte” denounced those who used a shotgun as guilty of 
barbarism. Cannot ‘‘C. A, R.” see the difference? If so, 
what excuse can he render for misstating the position? I 
did not “blame” ‘‘Piute” for preferring the rifle; and there 
is nothing in my article which affords even a decent pretext 
for making such an allegation. I did ‘‘blame” him for ex- 
pressing his ‘‘preference” in terms uncharitable and unjust 
to those who might differ from him—for | have no respect 
even for that class of men, who, in their language proclaim 
that they are of the ‘‘holier than thou” sort. 
“Piute’ may, indeed, be even more expert with a rifle 
than I am with a shotgun; and I freely admit that in a tree- 
less waste he could kill far more deer with his exclusive 
weapon than I could with my favorite one. But in thickets 
and dense woods, with the deer running, I beg to doubt 
whether either he or ‘‘C. A. R.” could do it. 
Who said, unless it was “©, A. R.,” that it was possible 
to ‘‘coax deer in North Carolina wilhin fifty yards” of the 
hunter? We do not try that plan, Weare unacquainted with 
that “charm.” Surely “OC. A, R.” is not so peor in his in- 
tellectual resources as to be obliged to misrepresent in order 
to make a successful argument? Who expressed a doubt, as 
“CO, A, R.” asserts was done, of the *‘liability of shot to tear 
the flesh without doing deadly damage”? He himself put up 
that ‘‘man of straw” to pull it down, and is thus guilty of a 
‘‘fantastic trick,” if not a ludicrous one. Who doubted that 
a rifle bad a greater ‘‘range” than a shotgun?—but in under- 
brush the “range” is not of yery much value. ‘ 
I beg now to notice the last seitence in “C, A. R,’s” illog- 
ical and unfair communication. It is in these words: ‘‘But 
‘Piute’s’ critic is not inclined to believe that shot (provided 
= - . 7% 
= 
4 “ 7 [Smrr. 4, 1864. 
SSS ee a ee rn 
it does reach the deer at long range) will cause torture with- 
out death, but it will most certainly.” That statement: is 
wholly without authority. I said nothing which gaye the 
shadow of a shade” of foundation for any such opirton. 
My eritic ought not to have imputed to me the ridiculous 
idea that any puncture of the hide of a deer, however 
small, would not produce pain, and that some would pro- 
duce ‘‘torfure” and even death. It is to be hoped that when 
he next takes occasion to show his skill in crificising he will 
fairly represent his antagonist, and not wantonly place him 
in a false position. No triumph worthy of un honorable 
ambition can ever come to one who resorts to that method of 
warfare. 
_ I close this article by simply calling attention to the main 
issue—whether the rifle is the on/y non-barbarous and sports: 
manlike weapon. “‘Piute’ and hig sympathizers say it is; T 
and those who agree with me say it is not, All side issues 
aré unallowable in a fair discussion, In no other am I dis- 
posed to enter. WELLS. 
Rocsineuam, N..C., Aug. 24. 
Liditor Forest and Stream: 
I have been an interested reader of the contest between 
“‘Piute” and his critics. Here are some suggestions drawn 
from war experience. J was on Grant’s stait in May, 1864, 
and when we got into the Wilderness and ran against Lee’s 
men, we lost so many men wounded that it caused Gen. Ham- 
mond to find out the reason. The soldiers had found it out 
before; and every captured gun and every Confederate pris- 
oner bore witness to one fact: that a bullet and then buck- 
shot are more deadly than a rifle bullet. I heard Gen. Grant 
myself give an order to his ordnance officer on May 6 to 
adopt the buckshot cartridge. Query: If so with soldiers, 
why not so with game? A man is a noble savage, a brute is 
a low savage; and lead and iron respect neither. Mrprco, 
WASHINGTON, D.C. ‘ 
BUCK FEVER. 
{| HAYE seen this mysterious affection of the nerves men- 
tioned in print, and have seen it exhibited by strong, 
cool men at the sight of game, and I regard it as a most in- 
explicable form of excitement. I am utterly unable to 
account for it. That a man who has stood on the battle-field 
while the minie-ball sang its song of death past his ears, 
while the dismal shriek of the shell echoed near him, and 
who has gone on calmly loading and firing in apparent un- 
consciousness of the fact that death was hovering oyer the 
field, and that agony and wounds were all around him; that 
such a man should tremble and grow pale at sight of an 
innocent denizen cf the forest fleeing for its life, is utterly 
beyond man’s comprehension; yet, though ‘‘strange it is, “tis 
true.’ And how one of these unfortunates will lie. I've 
heard one swear that he had killed a deer, heard him point 
out the place where it fell, while all the time he had never 
fired a shot, but his gun was still cocked ag he had set dé 
before he heard the animal in the red brush. Many a 
sportsman will indorse all this, and could doubtless add 
much more. 
Thereby hangs a tale. Lije, John and Jem Jones were 
brothers. All had been in the Federal army during the late 
unpleasaniness, and all had heard the ping of bullets, and 
seen the flash of the sabre. The two first were as thorough 
sportsmen as ever puiled a trigger, but Jem was feverish. 
Tt was my second deer hunt on Missouri soil. Old Frank 
Elias had got up the day’s sport for my especial benefit, 
His son Johu said to me: ‘‘ Keep as far as you cun from 
Jem Jones, but if you must be near him keep behind him.”’ 
I did not have time to inquire why, for just then John rode 
awiy. Fortune, however, showed me the reason of John’s 
advice. Jem Jones and | were thrown together to 20 to a 
certain, crossing. As we rode along Jones remarked : ‘‘ The 
boys generally don’t like to hunt with me.” ‘ Indeed,” said 
I, inquiringly, ‘that seems a little strange.” “‘O, they say 
J wet the buck-fever, and they never can tell where ’'m going: 
to shoot! John Elias swears I’m just as likely to shoot my 
partner as a deer, but Pl show you to-day that I can shoot 
as well ag any of thera, and as you're a stranger | want you 
to tell them go.” J agreed of course. 
“Jones, what's the matter with your horse’s near ear?” I 
asked, as I noticed that the said member was almost entirely 
gone. ‘John Elias shot it off,” was the reply. . ‘John says, 
(hough, that I did it myself. I hada short German shot- 
gun, and just when I shot at the deer John fired. Job here 
wheeled and run, and reared and bucked and kicked, till the 
other barrel of my gun went off and shot a load of buckshot 
just over old Frank Elias’s head, and I'll be whipped if Job 
didn’t fall ima dead faint, His ear was gone, John Elias 
claimed the deer hide, because he swore that 1 shot into the 
ground and Job’s ear; and Lije and John—my own brothers, 
1oo—gave him the hide when they drew the other loads from 
our guns, and found hisgun loaded with No. 1 buckshot 
and mine loaded with 3s. After that brother Lije swore I 
must get a longer gun or quit hunting,” 
A. pleasant companion, truly, | thought; but we arrived 
at the crossing, and Jones said: ‘“You can take which side _ 
you please.” I thanked him and took the left. “Did you 
ever kill a deer?” asked Jones, ‘‘O, yes,” 1 replied, ‘‘many 
a one,” 
Jones was armed with a long double-barreled shotgun 
which he informed me was loaded with No, 3 buckshot. 1 
myself had a ritle. Wesat quietly on our horses for some 
time, when suddenly Jones straightened in his saddle, threw 
his gun to his shoulder, and fired into the body of an oak 
some fifty feet away and af least thirty feet from the ground. 
1 caught the rush of a deer, 2 noble buck with four spikes. 
My rifle came to my shoulder, and when it cracked I knew 
that the shot had told, But I had no time to say anything, 
for Jones exclaimed, “Great Jerusalem! all the deer in the 
county must be coming into this crossing!” And he rose 
again erect in his saddle, and again he touched the trigger, 
and poured another load of buckshot into a tree some forty 
feet off. threw my rifle to my face and as the silver drop 
rested on the spot it cracked, anda mark for the doe was 
added to the notches on the stock of my gun. 
“J got ’em both!’ shrieked Jem Jones, “‘didn’t I tell you 
1’d show John Elias and my own brothers, too, that I could 
kill deer? You must back me up on these, don’t forget now!” 
LT looked at him in utter amazement, but the rest of the 
party rode up at that time, aud Jem reiterated his assevera- 
tions made to me. I noticed that the whole party looked 
very doubtful. ‘‘What did you shoot at?” Lije Jones asked 
ot me, ‘I heard your gun bots times after Jen’s, or at least 
i heard a rifle.” “‘T shot at a deer each time,” said I. “Phen 
you missed ’em,” said Jem, ‘‘for both of mine fell dead in 
their tracks; I saw ’em kicking before I heard your gun.” 
We went to where the buck lay and Lije Jones gaid: 
uy 
