Feb. 8, 1896.., 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
IIS 
of a quarter of a mile, the whir, whirl of feathered 
wings and the gleam of dark disappearing bodies will 
greet the sight of the busy shooter, and many a tuft of 
feathers will greet the eye — a poor consolation for 3drs. of 
smokeless and l^oz. of No. 8 shot. 
Many use No. 10 shot and claim that it gives best satis- 
faction in shooting and I think that it does to a certain 
extent; but although you will have more birds wounded 
you will not have so many killed, and a valley quail with 
his wing broken will often lead a dog a weary cbase 
through tbe greasewood before he is bagged. 
I prefer a cylinder bored gun in hunting, as most of the 
shots are got at 20 to 25yds. , and have never been able to 
withstand the excitement of the moment long enough to 
let the bird get a better distance for a choke gun. But as 
you journey homeward you will think tbat the quail is 
the game bird the broad land through, and that his 
qualities are the same whether hunted in the cold of the 
East, that has nourished a more vigorous constitution, or 
bred by the mild winds of the Pacific. W. M. 
Pasadena, California, 
MOOSE HUNTING WAYS AND 
WEAPONS. 
Washington, D. C, Jan. 16. — Editor Forest and 
Stream: In your issue of Aug. 10, 1895, a correspondent— 
Tiani — gave an interesting account of a hunting trip, on 
which he killed two moose. With the issue of the follow- 
ing week began a series of criticisms upon his action 
which were to me, and some of my friends who know a 
little about hunting, very amusing. His conduct was 
described by one writer as "flagrantly unsportsmanlike" 
and "wantonly and unfeelingly cruel," because (1) "the 
second moose was not needed for food," and (2) "there 
could be no possibility of a reasonably certain shot at 
200yds. which would kill. * * * A distance at 
which he could have no certainty of killing it, even if it 
stood immovably quiet. * * * The moose shot at was 
out of the range established by humane reasoning or the 
conventions of sportsmanship." Another critic thought 
that whether he had or had not killed a moose was irrele- 
vant as affecting his ability to discuss Tiam's conduct; 
that the latter snould have considered the rights of the 
people in all ferce naturce, and that two moose were more 
than his share; also, that he should not have shot at the 
moose running at 200yds., as "the range was uncertain, 
since with all his skill the moose was wounded and lost." 
Answering this last remark first, I beg to say that the 
moose was lost only because of Tiam's ignorance of hunt- 
ing. Every hunter knows that it is only in exceptional 
instances that game animals when shot drop in their 
tracks. A moose hit as the one mentioned would, if un- 
disturbed, go a few hundred yards and lie down, where 
it could be finished and secured easily after an hour or 
two. Tiam knew no better than to follow the wounded 
animal at once, and so lost it, of course. The value 
of any observation depends upon the ability and qualifica- 
tions of the observer, and the man who knows something 
about moose hunting should be better able to discuss it than 
one who is ignorant of the matter. 
As to the point that the moose was not needed for food, 
I say that few, if any, moose are killed by sportsmen be- 
cause so needed. I have been compelled to shoot musk- 
rats for food, but none of the many moose I have killed 
was shot because I needed the meat. A sportsman kills 
his game as the culminating act in his sport. The pleas- 
ure does not lie in the killing — the taking the life of beast 
or fowl — as such, but in that as marking the success of his 
efforts as a hunter. The moose hunter matches his brains 
and acquired skill against the instinct and natural gifts of 
the animal; kills the latter to prove that he has beaten, 
taking the head and horns as a trophy, and making sure 
that the meat is not wasted. The pleasure is in the hunt- 
ing, not the mere killing. 
As to Tiam's invading the rights of the public and tak- 
ing more than his share, I venture to remark that one 
man's share of the existing moose cannot be ascertained 
by dividing the number of moose by the population of the 
country. The law in his country contemplates the moose 
hunters as forming a very limited class numerically, and 
so provides that each hunter may kill two moose in a 
season. There is no reason why both should not be killed 
in one day if the opportunity offers and the hunter 
chooses to make use of it. I have done it a number of 
times. 
The only remaining point made by the critics — in Corea 
they have a proverb, "Good critic, bad worker" — is that 
200yds. is too long range. This is simply ridiculous. A 
man who cannot kill a moose standing still at 200yde. 
would better stick to fishing or criticism and let guns 
alone. 
I wrote a long letter on all the foregoing matter in 
October last, intending to send it to you, but put it aside 
and it lay unused. In your issue of this week comes Mr. 
Irland and discourses with some vigor upon "A Rifle for 
Moose." I read his article this evening, and that incited 
me to write you a new and different letter. 
The aim of mankind everywhere nowadays seems to be 
to get the most for the least: to secure the greatest result 
with the least labor, or, I may say, with the least of one's 
own labor. -Hunters or would-be hunters are no exception 
to the rule apparently, from the tone of modern literature 
on the subject. To a real hunter, of course, the difficul- 
ties of the chase only add to the pleasure; but the would- 
be's great idea is to get a "hunting rifle" — one, I suppose, 
that, like the cheetah or hunting leopard, can kill his 
game for him. Now all the calibers and powder charges 
you can give a man who doesn't know how to find his 
game or get within range of it, and to shoot after he does 
get, or is taken by some one who knows how within 
shooting distance, will not enable him to kill it. A good 
hunter can find moose and get within range of them, and 
when there does not need a cannon to kill one. 
I have hunted for years with a '73 model .4440 Win- 
chester having a 20in. round barrel and just 17in. be- 
tween the sights, and have killed a good many moose 
with it. The first shot with this gun at a moose was at 
210 measured yards, made just as the animal, a big bull, 
turned to run, showing its side. The ball hit a rib, cut 
the aorta and lodged under the skin on the other side. 
The moose ran 100yds. The next shot was at a bull run- 
ning at its best, and went clear through without hitting 
a rib. The distance was a little over 220 measured yards; 
the moose ran about 30yds. and dropped dead. Both 
these shots were made while still-hunting late in October, 
when I had been twelve days in the woods, without rain 
or snow, the leaves dry and noisy, and on a day without 
a breath of wind. 
The next year I killed several moose, the largest I shot 
from a canoe and so could not measure the distance, but 
it was certainly over 200yds. I knocked the moose down, 
but while my Indian was rejoicing at the shot it got up 
and went off. We landed, ran over a knoll and headed it 
off on a bog, where I finished it. I shot two moose once 
that were going along on a bog some distance back from 
the opposite shore of a pond on which I was camped. I 
could not measure accurately the distance across the pond, 
but it was much more than the land distance and that was 
90yds. 
These moose were all killed before I wrote you the let- 
ter on "The Hunting Rifle," printed in your paper of Feb. 
9, 1888— a letter I wish some of your correspondents would 
look up and read. I still have the same little gun and the 
same ideas as than : that the man Bhould do the hunting, 
not the gun, and that there is no use in carrying a cannon 
into the woods when a gun will do. It would not occur 
to me to carry a .50-110 or even a .45 90 for hunting. I 
might use such a gun at a 500 or 600yds. target match. 
The advantage of the light gun is in its all-round quali- 
ties; it will kill a moose, deer or bear, and yet is not too 
heavy to use for grouse, squirrels, ducks, etc. I killed 
my last moose with a .40-65 Winchester, which I took on 
my hunt because it had been presented to me by an old 
hunting friend who was anxious for me to use it and re- 
port on its merits. I think I shall have to write you an 
account of that hunt when I get leisure. I killed the 
moose on a very cold day, with hard and extremely noisy 
crusted snow, such as would have made getting a shot at 
a common deer problematical, yet I got within 70yds. of 
these moose through a dense mass of standing and fallen 
spruce and flat-leaf cedar, and killed the bull as he got to 
his feet. This gun is an inch or so longer than the other, 
but the latter would have done just as well. I killed a 
number of grouse on the same trip; shooting their heads 
off, as I may remark, for Dick's edification. 
My views as to the subject discussed by your corre- 
spondents may be put thus: 
If the law allows a man to kill two mooso and be 
chooses to do it, there is no reason why he should not, 
and both in one day if he prefers and can, so long as he 
does not waste them. 
If a man has a gun that will kill a moose at 200yds. 
and thinks he can hit it, standing or running, there is no 
reason why he should not fire at it. The question of 
range depends entirely on the gun and the man's ability 
to use it. I would not hesitate to shoot at a moose, if I 
had the opportunity and wished to, at a good deal more 
than 200yds. , and would shoot off-hand, as I always do. 
Jan. 28.— Since writing the above, two more correspond- 
ents write in your paper for this week, one asking how 
a 12-bore shotgun would do for moose; the other whether 
calling is a legitimate way of hunting moose. The 12-bore 
will kill a moose all right, of course; the Canadian and 
northern Indians and half-breeds until within a few years 
used the Hudson's Bay Company's smooth-bores, but I 
would stick to the medium caliber moderate charge rifle. 
I killed a very good bull some years ago with a Win- 
chester shotgun, my rifle being at the moment three- 
quarters of a mile off on a portage where I had left it with 
my first load. The gun was a 12-bore, cartridges loaded 
with 3^drs. of powder and 12 buckshot. I got a chance 
at the side of ttie neck at 50yds., fired once only and the 
moose fell dead after running 100 or perhaps 150yds. 
There was no particular pleasure in that performance; 
there was no hunting, as the moose came along within 
range at his own motion and no skill was required; 
for any one tall enough to stand on his tip-toes and look 
over the corner of the tent, as I did, and know what the 
foot square black patch through the thick spruce brush 
was, could have killed it. I shot it because I wanted it for 
the National Museum, to which I gave it, and it is mounted 
there. 
In calling, the moose does not come within range casu- 
ally and unexpectedly, as the one just mentioned did, but 
in response to the efforts of the caller to bring him there. 
The sportman seldom does the calling, so that the bulk of 
the credit lies with the guide; for any one should be able 
to do the shooting, which is generally at very moderate 
range, except in occasional instances, when it is very dark 
or the shooting has to be done by sound — locating the 
moose by the noise he makes — which requires experience 
and judgment; for none of all the creatures of the woods 
that I know can sneak about as silently as the moose does 
when he wishes to, despite his great antlers and huge 
bulk. 
I never had but one moose called to me, and that, a bull 
whose horns spread 5ft. , I kdled with a single shot from 
my .44-40. It was the first week in October, 1884, about 
9 P. M. I was in a canoe shoved up among the bog wil- 
lows and brush as far as it would go toward the timber; 
the wate 1 - was backed up by a splash dam, so that there 
was no bank, and the overhanging spruce and balsam 
made the darkness absolute. We had heard the bull a 
mile off on the side of a ridge, and I had let my Indian 
call it, once only, with his hands. We had no horn, for I 
never hunt calling. The bull came within twenty steps 
for some distance in the water, which was a foot deep 
some yards in the brush. "Splash I" as he stepped. 
"Woh!" A pause— "splash!" Another step— "woh!" We 
could see nothing before us but an impenetrable black 
wall. There was no way to shoot but by the sound, but it 
was so close something must be doneatonce, for we could 
not move the canoe. I rose to my feet, having already 
estimated the probable depth of the water ahead of us 
and the height a moose would be above it, fired one shot, 
and that was enough. The moose went about half a mile. 
I have killed other moose in the dark when I could make 
out nothing but an indistinct mass a little blacker than its 
surroundings, or could see absolutely nothing; yet every 
now and then some one writes that a moose cannot be 
located by sound. Any man who has ever watched a 
deer lick knows what little sound will enable him to locate 
a deer. 
Opinions depend upon the point of view. Personally I 
have never cared to call moose. It is a sort of hunting 
where the credit is all due the guide or caller, all that the 
sportsman has to do being to hit a creature so big he 
could not well miss it. 
Of all legitimate methods I prefer still-hunting. In 
that one matches his ability to catch against the animal's 
ability to elude, and there is plenty for both to do. The 
pleasure of a hunting trip should extend over every hour 
of every day. The mere being in the woods is a deligh * 
and chapters are needed to cover the varying pleasures of 
the camp life; the enjoyment of land, water, mountain, 
lake, forest and barren; of scenery, of rainy days, of suc- 
cessful and of unsuccessful ones, and of toilsome tramps 
and wearisome paddling. I like hunting that requires 
ability and,work; there are kinds of shooting that almost 
any sort of human being can do; but there is charm only 
in that which takes skill enough to reflect credit on the 
successful hunter. So I sum up my views as to your last 
two correspondents thus: Do not go after moose with a 
shotgun. Do not call moose if you can get a chance to 
still-hunt. 
As to Mr. Irland, who thinks a man almost insane who 
goes after moose with lees than an ounce ball and lOOgrs. 
of powder, I say for his information that my two guns 
are .44 40 and .40-65 Winchesters; the latter used only on 
one trip, the other hunted with for many years. I have 
never had to make a journey for any moose after shooting 
it with either of these guns. The one killed with the .40-65 
did not go five steps. Of the considerable number killed 
with the .44-4.0, one went half a mile; one, shot also in 
pitch darkness, went a quarter of a mile; no other one 
went over 300yds. , most of them very much less. My con- 
science is clear on the letting moose get away point. The 
only moose I have let get away are the many I have re- 
frained from shooting at. So many men nowadays, who 
know little or nothing about hunting and shooting, want 
to kill game that they can only do it by having a good 
guide to do the hunting, and by using — and that is what 
many of them clamor for — a gun so big as to make a shot 
almost anywhere — "on the tail, on the wing," etc., as the 
old darky said in the story — fatal. 
My advice to would-be moose killers is, learn to hunt 
and learn to shoot; you will soon see that you do not need 
a heavy gun nor pack load of ammunition. Enjoy the 
hunting, of which the killing is a small part. 
Cecil Clay. 
Fredericton, N. B. — Editor Forest and Stream: In 
your issue of Jan. 11 I noticed a letter from A. H. on 
rifles for big game, and he closes his letter by asking 
advice on the matter. 
Now if I may be permitted to offer a word or two, I 
would Bay, get the biggest bore and all the powder you 
can, and you won't be sorry. 
Mr. Irland, in last week's paper, has named about the 
right cartridge for moose; let A. H. study that up and 
bear in mind that Mr. Irland knows what he is talking 
about. 
I have a .40-82-260. I put three bullets into a bull 
moose this fall with it and lost him after all, and one 
more in another moose and lost him. I am quite sure I 
would have got both of them with a larger gun. 
Now some, no doubt, will say that I did not hold on 
the right spot of the moose. I will just say to such that 
in hunting moose in the thick brush of a New Brunswick 
forest you cannot always pick out the particular spot on 
a moose's hide you would like to perforate. 
Our record this fall was a bad one: four wounded moose 
lost on one hunt and two brought to bag, or a total of 
two killed and four lost — three of them with horns. I 
am like Mr. Irland, I feel badly about it. I never had it 
happen before, always heretofore having had the luck to 
bring to bay every animal I hit. The first rifle I had was 
a .32 Remington, the next a .38 Remington, the next a 
.40-60 Winchester, and last a .40-82 Winchester; and now 
I am in the market for something about .45 or .50-cal. 
and anywhere from 100 to 125grs. of powder and solid 
ball. 
Don't take an Express rifle in the brush; it is not good 
for that work. If you want more testimony, here it is: 
Yesterday I had a long talk with old Joe Mitchell, our 
best Indian guide. I shot my first caribou some years ago 
under Joe's direction, and we are old chums. He has 
been away with parties since Sept. 18, and has had his 
share of luck as usual. He is home for the winter now, 
and we were comparing our experiences this fall. 
When I told him of my bad luck with the big moose, he 
said, "Your gun is too small. I always knew that. No 
good, no good. I have the gun now for moose." And he 
proudly showed me his new .50-110 Winchester. "That's 
the gun for moose," said Joe. ' 'He no run far with that 
in him; make big hole, bleed fast; get him sure." 
When I first hunted with Joe he had a .38-40 old silver- 
mounted Winchester. Next he got a .44-40, and now the 
,50-110. So you can see what he thinks about it. 
Let A. H. consider this when he speaks of weight. A 
.38-56 Winchester weighs 10+lbs.; a .40-82, 9flbs.; a .45-90, 
91bs., and a .50 still less. Now, what do you gain by tak- 
ing the smaller cartridge? Nothing; and you cannot get 
a lighter one unless you take one of the new model .38-55, 
and that, in my opinion, would be a mistake. The .38-55 
cartridge only holds 48grs. any way; the name sounds 
big, but the stuff is not there. 
As Mr. Irland says, the number of men who have a 
chance to look at a moose through the sight of a rifle is 
small, and when they do see him they want a gun that 
will bring him down, and the quicker the better. 
I noticed that the Forest and Stream man who was 
hunting with Jock Darling had trouble with his gun rust- 
ing. Perhaps a wrinkle I got from Henry Braithwaite 
would not come amiss. 
Get a good piece of calfskin and have a cover made to 
fit loosely over the gun, and only cover it back to the cone 
of the stock. Keep the cover well greased, and no matter 
how it rains or snows your gun will come out ready for 
business. 
You can load the gun and stalk your game and still 
leave the cover on till the last minute before firing, which 
is an advantage, as in the woods you are apt to get snow 
in the muzzle if you are not careful. A canvas cover, as 
supplied by the gun stores, is of no use in wet weather, or 
in Bnow in winter; it freezes and then it takes too long to 
get the gun out. The kind I refer to can be pulled off in 
a second, and leaves the stock to carry the gun by. I 
have never had the slightest trouble since I have used this 
kind of cover; and when I am in the woods I carry the 
gun in every kind of weather. Otherwise it is impossible 
to keep a repeating rifle in working order in the winter 
traveling through the bushes loaded with snow; the only 
way to do is to have a cover which is waterproof and can 
be removed quickly. Blue Nose. 
The Forbst and Strkam is put to press each week on Tuesday. 
Correspondence intended for publication should reach U3 at the 
latest by Monday, and as much earlier as practicable. 
