Tag: Guns and such

Long Time Readers will know of my fondness for full-stocked rifles like the SMLE.  Try this beauty on for size, at Steve Barnett’s Very Very Bad Place:

Okay, it looks beautiful, and the chambering is of course excellent — the 8mm Mauser cartridge is adequate for almost any purpose, like its Murkin .30-06 counterpart — but I have a couple of reservations about the Mannlicher flat or “butter-knife” bolt handle.

You see, it’s lovely to look at and of course it works very well;  but after more than half a dozen shots, that sharp edge starts to hurt your hand.  Granted, in the hunting activity, you seldom have to shoot more than a couple of times in a row — unless things are going very, very wrong — but I must say I prefer a regular rounded bolt handle like this one to the butterknife above:

But would I shy away from the Brno (later named CZ) if offered?  Hell, no.

And this little short-barreled carbine would be extremely handy in the field.

I’m often asked, when at a meeting of the local Beer ‘N Treason chapter while we watch a luckless hippie turning gently on a spit:  “Kim, what’s it all about with this ‘Pre-64 Winchester rifle’ thing?  What’s so special about 1964, and why are these rifles so popular?”

At the risk of boring my Readers (who doubtless know all about this stuff), let me explain.

After 1964, the Winchester Repeating Arms Company changed their manufacturing methodology for their bolt-action rifles.  [insert anti-beancounter tirade here]  In the words of Scott Weber:

“Winchester went to stamped checkering on the gun stocks instead of hand checkering. Plastic replaced metal in some components, and a lesser grade of bluing was used on the rifle’s actions and barrels.  None of that changed the basic function and accuracy of the Model 70s, but the downgrades in craftsmanship angered many customers, and Model 70s made after 1964 don’t carry the same value as pre-’64s.”

As I recall, the actions were likewise changed, from forged- to cast steel.  While there is no appreciable change in efficacy, when working the bolt action there is a distinct change in the action’s sound from the pre-64 rifles to their post-64 successors.  The change in sound is likewise noticeable in other rifle generation changes, e.g. the Swiss K11 to the K31:  the cast steel makes a clacking sound, while the forged action rings. (No prizes for guessing which one I prefer.)

Anyway, what brought all this on was this rifle, newly-arrived at Merchant Of Death Steve Barnett:

Now let’s talk a little about the chambering of the above beauty.  The .300 H&H Magnum is often compared to the older (and much more common, certainly in the Mod 70) .30-06 Springfield, but the H&H is actually more powerful.  Frank Barnes gives the following data, using a common 190gr. bullet:

Muzzle velocity (fps)
.30-06 : 2,700
.300 H&H : 3,000

Muzzle energy (ft-lbs)
.30-06 : 3,076
.300 H&H : 3,798

I’ve used the .300 H&H myself back in the day, and its effect on thin-skinned game like warthog and impala is, to put it mildly, impressive.

Where the .30-06 excels, of course, is in the old “Bubba’s Bait & Tackle” test (especially in the U.S.).  If you forgot your ammo at home, any ammo store will have .30-06 on the shelf, probably with a choice of manufacturer.  (Actually, I think it’s against the law in some states not to carry any.) The .300 H&H?  Not so much — in fact, unless there’s a large chain store like Cabela’s in the offing, you can pretty much forget about finding it anywhere.

And the price difference reflects that availability:  .30-06 runs about $1.50 per round, whereas the .300 H&H will set you back $5 (!!!).

Not that this is too important, in hunting terms, because you’re not going to blast off hundreds of rounds, either way.

But if your other rifle is an old M1 Garand…

Note:  this post was supposed to appear yesterday, but Mr. Fumblefingers cocked up the date.  Mea maxima culo.