Survival...the .223 Cartridge.

I occasionally get some interesting mail. A few weeks back, I wrote about the .223 Remington cartridge and espoused my opinion that it makes a pretty poor big game rifle when one considers the available options.

A few days ago I received an email asking me my opinion on what I thought about the .223 as a "survival cartridge". Well, that's an awfully big subject. "Survival" could be anything from being stuck on your own in a wilderness setting awaiting rescue for a few days to a full blown, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario.

Since the author of the email didn't specify- I'll choose the practical more than the fanciful. Let's say you're on your own at a remote cabin and your float plane is delayed for a few days due to foul weather. It's not an imaginary situation- it happens every year here to at least a few hundred people. Combined with a freak accident in which your food supplies went over the bow of the canoe and down the rapids would leave you in a precarious sort of situation. In such a circumstance, any sort of device to procure some grub would be a welcome addition, a .223 included. I'm something of a minority when it comes to "survival rifles"- most are such a collection of compromises that they give up much utility. I've got a normal, light, scoped, bolt action rifle in .223 and it'd be fine in such a scenario.

Consider that I know many Native people out and about in Bush Alaska who rely on the .223 nearly exclusively for food procurement. I think you'd do just fine with the .223. In my travels I've been to several villages where the only discernible high powered rifles were Ruger Mini-14s firing ball ammunition. I've even seen a photograph of a young girl who'd just decked a rather large polar bear at close range. While such things show you what's possible with the .223, it's highly unadvisable.

Most of my Inupiat friends shoot the .223 and they shoot seals, hares, ptarmigan and the occasional caribou and manage to do quite alright with it. While I do believe the .223 lacks a lot to be desired in a big game cartridge, it is nearly ideal for head shooting seals. I've never shot a seal (I'm prohibited by law from doing so) but I've seen Native friends do it. It typically is a close range shot, from a good rest and very, very deliberate. Such shooting is perfect for an accurate, low recoil cartridge and Canadian Inuits have used the .222 Remington for years in a similar fashion. Shooting caribou in winter on barren ground makes for easy tracking in snow.

My Inupiat friends also shoot small game like hares and ptarmigan with the .223 and it does fine. Meat damage isn't as bad as you'd think. This last weekend I shot several ptarmigan with my .223 while predator hunting at about 100 yards or so with no meat damage at all. I've done much worse with a shotgun. Hares are often shot in open country at longer range as well and generally aren't approachable to within shotgun or .22 range when winter hits.

One thing to consider is that most Native folks aren't going to carry a bunch of different guns- they're going to carry one and a light .223 fits the bill perfectly. In that vein, the .223 works but I still can't see it as a weapon of choice for the big game hunter who is purposely pursuing larger game. As a survival rifle it would fit the bill and extend your range quite a lot on small game over a .22LR or shotgun and still be in the realm of possible should a larger animal present an opportunity. In times of desperation, you make do with what you have.

Heather's Choice!

As frequent readers of this blog know. I view most of the common freeze dried backpacking chow as one of the seven levels of hell. I've been known to chop up a ptarmigan into one, or more frequently just go hungry rather than choke one down. In a heavier camp, I'll drag around cast iron and a cooler and real eggs.

But that's not always possible when you're backpacking or rafting.

Enter one Heather Kelly of Heather's Choice. She started in her Anchorage home in 2014, providing meals on a pretty limited basis. Since then, her chow has found it's way to Everest- and into my camp.

Here's an excerpt:

"Originally created for those who rely on lots of calories to fuel them in the backcountry, our meals provide healthy, lightweight, sustainably sourced food without sacrificing taste. What we've come to find out is that people from all walks have recognized the importance of our meals; sailors, pilots, military personnel, and those who value emergency preparedness.

We use the highest quality proteins to create balanced, satisfying meals. Our current menu includes smoked wild caught Alaskan sockeye salmon, 100% grass-fed bison, 100% grass-fed elk, as well as humanely harvested venison, antelope and quail. These proteins not only provide you with high-quality nutrition, but are also sourced in a way that's environmentally friendly."

She had me at salmon, bison and elk...

Now she's looking to grow and funding it through a Kickstarter campaign....a concept I'm not sure I understand, but then again- I'm an old guy.

But this old guy is putting his money where his mouth is...and thinks you should too.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heathertkelly/heathers-choice-meals-for-adventuring

The Everyman Rifle Project....or A Bang Stick for Everyone Pt. 1

It's the onset of Middle Winter, in the lower latitudes they have 4 seasons and so do we...but we have early, middle and late winter making up three of them. Middle winter is the time of short daylight hours, frigid cold temps and long periods indoors. 

In short- the perfect time for a writing project. 

In looking back over the analytics and correspondence, many folks were interested in my last multi-part project on the .30-06 and several more have expressed a lot of interest in "budget" rifles like the Ruger American and Savage Youth Combo that I've reviewed over the last couple of years. Such writing is always fun even if it does take me a little while to finish it. I must admit, I've never been particularly impressed with the way most gun magazines test rifles. For one, they get a gun from a vendor- it may be cherry picked for accuracy or it may be a random selection from a bin, no one knows. Second, they always take the gun and shoot it with a variety of loads or even tailored handloads until they get something that shoots a "sub MOA" group. Third, rarely are any problems reported on the rifle and if they are, it's minimized.

The bottom line is that gun tests in magazines and blogs very rarely match the way rifles are used in the real world. For instance, I saw a test reporting "outstanding accuracy!" on a budget gun by shooting $85 a box ammunition through a bench clamp. While the test is valid, it ignores the fact most folks shooting $300 rifles are never going to spend $85.00 on a box of ammo or ever shoot the rifle from such a device. With that in mind, what I'm proposing is to do something a little more real world and in order to keep myself on the intellectual straight and narrow, we have to devise some rules. 

So here they are:

1. Budget Rifle- must be a rifle marketed toward the entry market. For instance, the Ruger American, the Savage Axis, The Savage 11, The Remington 783, The Winchester XPR and the like. We will be somewhat limited on the variety based on what we can scrounge up for test. This is largely driven by Rule #2. An MSRP of approximately $500 for a bare rifle will be the cut off point. There is some discretion on this point driven by the local market being somewhat higher than the Lower 48 and some makers having grossly inflated MSRPs (I'm looking at you Ruger) over what you typically find them for at retail.

2. Test Rifle- must be a privately owned rifle acquired through normal retail channels. None of these rifles will be acquired from a distributor or manufacturer. These are all the personal property of someone, some of them are mine, some of them belong to friends of mine borrowed for the testing. In short, these are a representative sample of what commonly hits the marketplace.

3. Ammunition- we will select 2 varieties of hunting ammunition per cartridge out of the readily available box store stock sticking to major makers' lower priced offerings. Federal "Blue Box", Remington Core Lokt , Winchester Power Point and similar. No match ammo or "Premium" makers will be involved in the test. Real world buyers of these rifles don't buy 12 boxes hunting for optimum loads and they don't spend double the cost of the rifle on a few boxes of shells. 

4. Shooting- the rifles will be fired for three shot groups, 3 times by two shooters...or 18 rounds per ammunition type at 100yds. The shooting will occur over an improvised rest, consisting of a folding table, chair, and a backpack (the way guys with $300 rifles do it!). No ransom rest or bull bags. Results will be reported in a table with no "Do-overs", "Mulligans" or "Called Flyers". The 12 groups will be averaged and reported as the definitive "Accuracy" of the rifle. I fully realize that we could squeeze a bit more accuracy out of them by using a concrete bench and bull bags but here's the reason- the same two guys are going to shoot every rifle- which statistically levels the field and the nearest concrete shooting bench is a hundred miles away.

5. The "Good, Bad, Ugly" Report- the rifle will receive a score on objective criteria such as "Feeds from magazine" as well as some subjective criteria such as "Fit and Finish". I'm still thinking about the best way to this but it will likely look like a value added analysis ( I may be overthinking this a little). It's hard to score rifles on things like stock fit and balance and so forth so we'll try to steer clear  of elements without a firm metric. We'll report such things as a "Notes" entry.

There's the criteria and at this point, I'll invite readers to suggest edits to the rules. I'm very much open to suggestions on this but I need to nail it down before the shooting starts. So please make your suggestion in the comments of via email. 

Thanks,

Hodgeman

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I'd like to take this time to wish all my readers a very, happy Thanksgiving. I'd contemplated a piece wherein I list and talk about all the things I'm thankful for, but that would be a very long article indeed.

Suffice to say, I feel blessed beyond measure- a great year, great friends, and many adventures enjoying the beauty and bounty of the land. I wish the same for you too.

Happy Thanksgiving,
Hodgeman

Moving North. Some Unsolicited Advice.

I've gotten the question in email now a few times and in person a lot.  So I'll post this out there.

There are three separate types of regulations for Alaska hunters:
1. Non-residents- U.S. Citizens who don't live in Alaska
2. Non-resident Aliens- non-U.S. Citizens who don't live in Alaska
3. Residents- U.S. Citizens who live in Alaska.

Residency is slightly complicated but basically requires moving to Alaska and living here full time for the previous 12 months. Residency comes with a lot of benefits for hunters, the first being that a full bore hunting/fishing/trapping license is a mere $62 and lot of areas and tags are resident only.

For the Non-Resident folks-

I often get asked by people who relocate here about ponying up the substantial dollars for a non-resident license while they're counting down the 12 months to residency. Often thinking they'll get out there for an early win on moose or caribou. Well, a non-resident hunting license is $230 and you'll need a non-refundable moose tag for $400 (or a caribou for $325).

In short- don't. The rationale, few folks can hit the ground running after moving here. Moving here can be a bit daunting and a whole lot expensive. You'll not likely have much (if any) scouting, you'll be unfamiliar with the terrain and regulations and your chances of success are pretty slim without some inside help. If you want to hire a guide then of course all bets are off and you should buy a non-res license.  If you are a non-resident alien- you'll need to hire a guide for all big game anyway.

What to do? My recommendation has always been to buy a small game license in that first year. For  a couple of reasons. One, small game hunting is a great way to meet other hunters and learn how to read regulations and scout areas. Two, we have some phenomenal small game hunting that is worth spending the time exploring. A non-resident small game license is a mere $20 and is likely the best non-resident hunting bargain up here.

So far, a few folks have taken this advice and most reported they were happy to have done so. One gentleman reported he couldn't manage to find a grouse, much less a moose, his first year here and was happy to have not spent the substantial bucks for a big bowl of non-res tag soup. His second year he had a new resident hunting partner introduced by a mutual friend and some good ideas about where and how to hunt and was successful as a first year resident.

Just some food for thought.

The .223 Debate... Go Big or Go Home

I recently received a piece of correspondence asking my thoughts on the .223 as a big game rifle. I've written briefly on the subject a couple of times and it seems that you can't get on a hunting or shooting forum without seeing this topic come up repeatedly. I only frequent a couple of hunting forums regularly but the topic is a perennial one.

I could approach the topic from the usual way- which is to procure a whole bunch of data and provide a detailed analysis in regards to the foot pounds of energy at differing ranges, trajectory tables and so forth. Since I've actually shot big game with a .223, I could provide an anecdotal example or two as well. But, I'm not sure I really want to do that.

I'm sure the debate will carry on about using the .223 for deer regardless of what I write about.

I will acquiesce that modern bullets have done nothing but improve the .22 centerfire cartridges, in fact all cartridges are more effective than ever with the excellent bullets we have today, but I have a hard time accepting the .223 as a deer cartridge. I've shot a number of big game animals with the .223 and I have to admit, I wasn't really impressed. At close range, with a good bullet... it worked. I also lost the only deer I ever wounded to the .223 as well. I've seen a deer shot with a .22-250 that dropped so fast that I suspected a spinal hit but it was a behind the shoulder lung shot. I could talk about all that stuff in great detail.

But I won't.

I'd like to reframe the question from being about the .223 and other .22 centerfires to virtually all other larger centerfire cartridges out there. What you notice is that when you look at the .270 or the .308 or one of the endless 7mm cartridges.... no one questions their effectiveness as a big game rifle. No one. People will argue about which one is their favorite, or the most accurate, or the most efficient, but not their effectiveness. Elmer Keith loathed the .270 (or at least its most vocal proponent- Jack O'Connor) but still used the cartridge for mountain goat. Even when you step down to the mild .243 Winchester, no one really questions whether you're talking about a deer rifle or not. The only debates I've seen are when you get to elk or moose, but even big Western mule deer are seen as .243 country. Most states that regulate a minimum cartridge start with the 6mm/.243 bore. Why? Because it works. I've seen a few deer and a couple of caribou readily decked with the .243 Winchester.

It's my suggestion that the absence of argument about those standard bore rifles should speak very loudly when choosing a cartridge. Want to kill deer? No one will tell you the .270 won't do the job. Want to deck an elk? Say .30-06 and you'll get little disagreement. Want to kill a caribou? Carry a 7mm and no one will bat an eye. Respond with a .223 for any of those animals and people will be doubtful. With good reason. In Craig Boddington's "North American Hunting Rifles", he pretty well sums it up as "not big game rifles" and leaves it at that. Cooper derisively referred to the .223 as a "poodle shooter". Many people with far more experience than I have are leery of the .223 on deer sized game.

In my experience, the .223 can work...but you need a good bullet and you need to get close and you need to be really picky about your shot. You might be in for a long tracking job or you might want to take head and neck shots. I'm of the opinion that if you need to make those kinds of stipulations, you really should be thinking about a heavier cartridge to start with. Deer are relatively easy to kill and a .270 will pretty much be forgiving of bullet construction and poor angle, but not the .223. In the bigger cartridges you can argue about what works better but they all work. Virtually any of the standard "deer guns" with a soft point bullet will kill most big game dead as Sunday's fried chicken. I can't say that with the .223.

I've never seen the point of relying on the absolute bare minimum cartridge when shooting for blood when far better choices are so readily available.

Early Season, Opportunity and Desire- Pt. 2

As the bugs hatched out and became unbearable, we relocated camp to a large gravel flat near a large lake. The wind from the lake would help knock down the bugs and the lack of vegetation gave the wee beasties fewer places to hatch from. While most folks concentrate on the ubiquitous mosquito, the most dreaded insect in this corner of Alaska is the biting gnat. The creature goes by several names- the biting gnat, the biting midge and the "no-see um" the proper name is the one almost no one refers to them by, Ceratopogonidae. No matter- they all refer to a terrible creature, who gnaws a bloody hole in your skin and then apparently craps in the hole for spite. The gnats lay eggs and hatch out in the tussocks of damp mountain tundra and walking across it can raise unbelievable clouds of them. Once they detect a mammal- the females home in and commence to feed on blood as part of the reproductive cycle. Many people have terrible allergic reactions to the proteins in their saliva and break out in huge welts. Camping on dry gravel bands and bars, particularly in wind prone locations can reduce the exposure. Insect repellant is largely ineffective.

As insignificant as the gnats are- they would play a larger role later tonight.

After relocating camp, we finished butchering the caribou and hung it up beneath a tarp. The tarp would protect it from sunlight and rain while allowing the cooler breeze to reduce the temperature of the meat. In the cooler temps the meat could safely hang in camp for a couple of days without risk of spoilage. My friend Gary joined us in camp that evening and after a quick late lunch, we assembled his inflatable raft and set sail down a series of chained lakes for an area we'd been successful last year. It was a short trip and we made quick work with a small outboard on the raft.

We arrived and beached the raft. We climbed a pressure ridge and established a glassing post on the most prominent ridge top. The dry gravel at the top combined with the non-stop breeze of the lake channel kept the gnats at bay, only an occasional one would stray into the area. Finding caribou took less than 5 minutes. A large bull fed his way into view. He looked a long way off but as typical on the tundra, ranges are difficult to estimate. Gary got into a prone position over his daypack and lined up. I  did likewise with my .270.

I asked Gary if he was comfortable with the shot, "It looks long, are you steady on this one?"

He replied, "Yeah, I've got it. No problem."

His .338 boomed and I watched the bull hunch up at the impact. It was a solid hit and the bull staggered and stumbled. We waited for a couple of moments waiting for the bull to tip over.

Except, he didn't. He started walking and stumbling away.

"Give him another." I called out- watching intently through the binoculars.

Gary fired again. Miss. And again....miss. With each successive shot the bull put more distance on the range and got more intent on fleeing.

"Shoot him now!" Urged Gary. His voice was intent now that the bull was obviously wounded and his rifle was empty. I peered through the scope on the .270... the bull was strongly quartering away and I simply aimed for the middle and fired. Boom! No reaction. I fired again with no effect. The .270 is zeroed for 250 yards the fact I was undershooting him made me think this bull was a distressing distance away. I held the horizontal wire on the bull's back line and as carefully as I could manage, squeezed a round off. Boom! With a significant delay I heard the kugelschlag, the sound of the bullet striking game come back. It was a sharp crack rather than a hollow whomp which indicated I had struck bone. The bull collapsed with a shattered rear leg. I fired my last round out of humanity trying to end his life as quickly as possible. It broke my heart when I saw a clump of dirt fly up in front of the caribou.

My remaining ammunition was located in the boat, along with my rangefinder. It was about a 5 minute hike back down and then a 10 minute climb back up. As I got ready to tear off, Gary found 2 rounds in his day pack. Rather than fire them from our perch, we made a plan. I would stay on the ridge and guide Gary through hand signals to the wounded bull which would allow Gary to dispatch it at close range. I would follow with the packs once he located the bull. As Gary picked his way across the tundra on a near dead run through the brush, it was apparent the bull was much farther than either of us though. A little map and Google Earth work would later reveal the initial shot was very near 450 yards- much farther than either of us would have knowingly attempted- and the final shot was on the order of 550 yards. After an agonizing period of time I saw Gary enter the small basin with the bull and heard the report of the rifle, followed by another.

It was finished.

I followed a few minutes later after retrieving the packs from the raft. The bull was huge. The first hit had hit the bull a little too far back, in the liver. The wound would have been fatal but the caribou could have went a considerable distance. The second wound had smashed the upper femur of the onside rear leg. The bull was bleeding heavily and would have died fairly soon had Gary not shot it in the neck to end the suffering. We both felt horrible at how this happened. We both really try very hard to avoid this kind of thing. It was Gary's first experience with anything but a bang, flop, DRT shot. It was unfortunately not my first. We both hope it to be the last. I know that it does happen, occasionally animals just die hard. It doesn't mean I like it.

We set about to field dress the animal, more somber than usual, without the chit chat or cheerful way we usually go about the work. It also became uncomfortable as the breeze died and the gnats came out in force. It also got far worse, once Gary realized he had forgotten his headnet which is the only way to seek refuge from them. We tried every trick in the book, we gutted the animal and then pulled the carcass several yards away- hoping to lure the midges to the pools of blood and entrails. It worked, but only a little. After a brutal 20 minutes, Gary resorted to putting pieces of rolled up toilet paper in his ears to keep the gnats out of his ear canals. I would occasionally hear him cursing under his breath but otherwise he was silently suffering the bugs and a heavy heart.

After perhaps a half hour, I looked up and saw something moving across the tundra. A large bull was walking right toward us. I still had a tag in my pocket and a rifle full of ammo. I decided against it and went back to work butchering. I looked up again, the caribou's larger cousin had joined them and they were standing there, staring at us stupidly. The second bull was perhaps, the largest bull I've ever had opportunity to shoot. I went back to cutting, the wheels turning. We had to finish Gary's caribou and pack it to the raft, it would require two trips through the buggy tundra. Then we had to travel an hour up the lake to camp. If everything went right, we'd arrive right at dark. Right at dark provided I didn't shoot a second bull.

I looked up again, the bull was only 15 feet away as I held the rifle in my hands. I only had to raise it and shoot. I could have killed it with a spear. I thought very hard about what to do next. I looked at Gary, he had a trickle of blood coming from his ear and his face was looking puffy from the bites. Midges were all over our bare arms mixing our blood with that of the caribou. I knew he'd never say a word or complain if I doomed us to another two hours out here in purgatory. He'd never complain about a ride across the lake in the dark guided by headlamp. Internally, I couldn't wrap my head around causing any more death today. Or additional suffering. I'd had enough.

"I'm going to regret this tomorrow." I said as I snapped the safety on and dropped the rifle on my pack. Relief swept over Gary's face and my heart sank a little. I'd just had enough of it all for today.

The caribou snorted loudly and walked away in a long wide circle and disappeared over the edge of the plateau.