A: No. It is impossible for me to tell you about your gun without examining it. And, in any case, not being a collector it is unlikely that I could help you very much. Take it to a local gun shop and let them have a look at it, they can probably answer at least some of your questions after inspecting it.

A: Please do not send photographs or attachments of any kind without prior authorization. Due to the volume of mail I receive I automatically delete all e-mail containing attachments or graphics.

A: Please do not ask me to compute your recoil or trajectory for you; these are things that you can figure out for yourself. GUNS AND SHOOTING ONLINE includes information to help you do this. Take a look at the relevant lists and tables on the "Tables, Charts and Lists Page," they are there for your benefit.

A: You might take the time to notice that the Main Site of Guns and Shooting Online as well as the Photography and Astronomy, Naval and Military Affairs, Travel and Fishing, and Motorcycles and Riding sites remain totally free. (Well, not free at all, but paid for out of my pocket.)

The fact is that I am, or was before I got so involved in my web site, a retired guy on a diminishing income. Couple that with the expense of supporting the bandwidth that over four million hits on chuckhawks.com requires every month and something simply had to be done. Guns and Shooting Online is so popular that I have had to become a domain, buy my own server, pay for a 1.5 Meg. DSL line, hire professional support people (I am not a computer person, just a writer!), and so forth. Now we have a staff, for goodness sake. (Scroll down the Home Page to read the masthead.)

Guns and Shooting Online is ranked a top 10,000 web site by Quantcast (out of over 20 million web sites in the world). We have about twice the monthly visitors as Field and Stream and about 2.5 times as many visitors as Outdoor Life. (Notice that they are also subscriber based.)

If there is to continue to be a Guns and Shooting Online, it has to pay for itself. Not to mention the unpleasant fact that maintaining and expanding it has become a full time job, and I can't live on good wishes alone. That is why there is now a Member Side to Guns and Shooting Online. I'm sorry that you are disappointed, but I am gratified and humbled by the success of the Member Side and its acceptance by the great majority of our readers. Also by the recognition that Guns and Shooting Online has received from so many of the fine companies that comprise the shooting sports industry.

A: Beats me, the .25-06 is an excellent deer cartridge. With a 120 grain bullet it comes close to the performance of the .270 Win. Even better is the .257 Wby. Mag. Both are covered on the Rifle Cartridge Page.

A: They will provide deeper penetration but less energy and expansion. If you go that route, I'd choose the Nosler, as I believe it expands better than the Fail Safe. The Federal/140 grain Nosler Partition is probably the best of the factory loads for your purpose. As a handloader, I'd go with one of the 150-154 grain bullets at a MV around 2700 fps--probably the 154 grain Hornady InnerBond or 150 grain Nosler Partition, depending on which my rifle preferred.

A: True, although the Scandinavian moose (alg) are smaller than North American moose, actually about the size of our elk. The Scandinavian hunters mostly use a 156 grain bullet at a MV around 2550-2650 fps, which is why I'd prefer a 150-154 grain bullet in a 7mm-08.

A: Both are satisfactory elk cartridges. The .270 and the .30-06 are based on the same case, have the same powder capacity, and are about equally effective on game. For large game like elk, moose and the great bears, the .30-06 is probably superior due to its ability to handle heavier bullets (180 grains plus). There is an article directly comparing these two cartridges on the Rifle Cartridge Page.

A: Most .30-30 rifles in good condition give good accuracy if equipped with a telescopic sight and shot from a bench rest using proper technique. Most shooters can shoot a .30-30 more accurately than the harder kicking high intensity calibers under hunting conditions. Many years ago, when I sold rifles at the retail level, among the .30-30 models I sold were the Savage 340 and Remington 788 bolt actions, and the Winchester Model 94 and Marlin 336 lever actions. The Savage 99 lever action was no longer available in .30-30 at that time, but we sold it in .300 Sav. All were good, reliable and accurate rifles which invariably resulted in a satisfied customer. I don't remember any one model as being consistently more accurate than the others.

A: 7.62mm NATO is the military designation for the civilian .308 Winchester cartridge. The 7.62mm NATO is interchangable with the .308 Win., and may be fired in any rifle (in good condition) chambered for the .308 Win. For more information, see my article on the .308 Winchester.

A: Guns and Shooting Online is primarily for recreational shooters and hunters; it is not about military arms, assault rifles and the like. If it were, the 7.62x39 would get a lot more attention. Still, we have covered it in detail in these articles:

Compared: .30-30 Win. and 7.62x39 Soviet (Rifle Cartridge Page)
The 7.62x39 Soviet (Rifle Cartridge Page)
The 7.62x39 Russian (Reloading Page)

As a hunting cartridge, there are about a hundred better choices, so why choose such an inferior cartridge for deer hunting? It will kill a deer at modest range with a hunting bullet and proper shot placement, but so will a .22 LR. That doesn't make either one a good choice for the purpose.

Downsides to the 7.62x39 as a deer cartridge? Well, lets see, it is inferior in sectional density, trajectory, bullet weight, energy and killing power to most of the common deer cartridges, not to mention the inherently inferior accuracy of most 7.62x39 rifles.

A: I cover this subject in some detail in my article "The All Around Rifle Cartridges," you might want to give it a read. Briefly, the cartridges that meet your criteria (since you are hunting in North America) are the .270 Win., .308 Win., 7mm Rem. Mag. and the .30-06 Spfd. A rifle chambered for one of those cartridges should meet your needs.

A: The fact is that I am not very interested in that category of weapon. I was forced to qualify (shot "Expert," no less) with the M-16 in the military. It was designed as a rifle for half-skilled troops that don't know how to shoot and must rely on a weapon that sprays like an aerosol can. That is, in fact, what we had in Vietnam and why the AR-15 was adopted in the first place. (Thank God that today we have a volunteer military--the best in the world--and real shooters in the front line, a totally different situation than during the Vietnam War.)

As a varmint rifle for civilian use, the AR-15 and its clones are not the best choice. Stick with a heavy barrel bolt action or single shot rifle specifically designed for the purpose of shooting small varmints at long range, rather than a modified assault rifle.

A: NO! The military BAR you refer to was an squad level light machine gun that weighed about 16 pounds, complete with bipod. The current BAR is a much lighter autoloading (semi-automatic) hunting rifle chambered for several contemporary sporting cartridges. There is no similarity at all except the name "BAR" and the fact that the Browning name is associated with both. In the first instance, John Browning was the designer, in the second Browning Arms is the manufacturer.

A: Any rifle can jam, even a single shot, there is no doubt about that. And even though a good falling block single shot is a reliable type of action, I wouldn't hunt dangerous game with one. Clearly, factors other than reliability must be considered, including such things as the speed and number of repeat shots available and the user's level of excitement during the encounter, which may impact (among other things) his ability to reliably operate the rifle correctly.

A malfunction its not a matter of possibility, but of probability. The Safari Grade BARs that I have used have been extremely reliable. My personal .338 Safari Grade BAR Mk. II has proven to be 100% reliable in actual use (which is more than I can say for my push feed bolt action rifles), so I regard its probability of failure at a critical moment to be very low. And, unlike those bolt action rifles, it is not susceptible to user caused jams (short stroking, etc.).

I have a lot of faith in my Safari Grade BAR Mk. II. That's important, too. Everyone should use whatever rifle they trust, as the human factor usually outweighs mechanical considerations during stressful situations.

A: Yes, there is a difference. But the real question is "how much difference?" Velocity loss depends on many factors. One important factor is the caliber for which the rifle is chambered. Velocity loss is generally greater with higher velocity calibers. See my article "The Rifle Barrel" for more on this subject (http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_barrel.htm). The accurate way to find out is to chronograph the same load in the rifles you are comparing, and then decide if the difference is noticeable to you. Personally, I don't like a barrel less than 20" long on any centerfire hunting rifle.

A: You will lose velocity from a short barrel. The standard of comparison is a 24" barrel. The actual amount of velocity lost depends on the cartridge/load and the indivudual barrel/rifle. You might profit from reading my article "The Rifle Barrel": http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_barrel.htm

A: I guess that depends on how you define "carbine." Traditionally, a rifle had a 26" barrel and a carbine had a 22" barrel. The carbine was much handier and the ballistic loss was acceptable for most purposes and cartridges. But now "standard" high intensity caliber rifles come with barrels only 22" long, and "carbines" run 16.5-20", which is too short for cartridges on the order of the 7mm-08.

So, would I recommend a 7mm-08 rifle with a 22" barrel, yes. Would I recommend a 7mm-08 with a barrel shorter than 22", generally not. Are there any 7mm-08 "carbines" out there with 22" barrels, yes. My favorites are probably the Remington Model Seven CDL, Remington Model 700 Mountain LSS and Ruger M77R, all bolt action rifles. In a lever action, there is the Browning BLR.

A: Perhaps. At least that is probably what they would say. My suspicion would be that it is mainly to sell newer calibers. From a marketing standpoint, rifles are too well made and last too long. (Some of the newer designs are unlikely to have that problem, though!) New cartridges, redundant though they may be, are one way to sell new guns.

In some cases the change in catalog velocity is due to the availability of inexpensive chronographs. Many of the old velocities were taken in 26" test barrels built to minimum specifications, and when consumers got access to chronographs, they found that factory loads did not deliver the advertised velocity in their hunting rifles. Such a stink was raised that a couple of decades ago the ammo manufacturers revised their testing procedures, changed the standard barrel length for most rifle calibers to 24", and started printing more accurate catalogs.

Around the same time they also lowered the pressure to which some of the established cartridges were routinely loaded; why I don't really know. But that is why I hypothesize that they wanted to spur sales of newer cartridges that would not otherwise catch on since they could not offer better performance. I mean, who really needs a .270 WSM that delivers something less than 3200 fps in actual rifle barrels if the .270 Win. was still loaded to an actual velocity of 3160 fps, as it once was? But maybe that is just my cynical and suspicious nature . . ..

A: There are so many good deer rifles that it is hard for me to pick just one. Right now I am mostly carrying a stainless Ruger K1-A in 6.5x55 SE. I have always liked the Marlin, Henry and Winchester lever action carbines, having found them to be handy, well made, reliable and attractive. My article "The Deer Rifle," which explores the subject more fully, might be of interest to you.

A: You will find that the gas operated action really does soften apparent recoil. I can't give you a figure, but the difference is very apparent. I doubt that you will notice much difference between the three cartridges, especially in an autoloader like the Remington or Browning. For an autoloader, I would choose the .308 because it was designed for reliable operation in autoloading actions.

I think the 7400 and BAR are both good guns. I prefer the Browning, mostly because I like the looks and finish of it and I have more experience with it.

A: No. Most people do not choose to hunt with traditional military arms like the obsolete Mosin-Nagant because they are long, heavy, bulky, unwieldy, slow and are often chambered for cartridges that are hard to fine factory loaded with decent hunting bullets. Actually, the accuracy of these rifles can be pretty sketchy; sometimes quite good and sometimes horrible. In addition, it is usually difficult or nearly impossible to mount a modern telescopic sight on most surplus military rifles. The newer assault rifle clones typically shoot cartridges that lack adequate killing power for big game hunting and they are not particularly accurate.

Chamber a sporting rifle for a cartridge like the .308 Win. and you have a far more effective hunting weapon than any military rifle. Military requirements are very different from hunting rifle requirements. Have you ever seen a Remington Model 700 with a bayonet lug or a straight bolt handle? And how many have you seen without a scope sight?

A: A .243 or 6mm rifle of the same weight kicks less than a .30-30. I own both, and I can definitely tell the difference. As it happens, I had both my 6mm and .30-30 rifles at the range recently, and a couple of my shooting pals mentioned the difference in recoil. The .30-30 kicks about 30% harder. See the "Expanded Rifle Recoil Table" on the Tables, Charts and Lists Page for a comparison of these cartridges, and many more.

A: Yes, he is. Bullet penetration is a function of Sectional Density (SD), other factors such as weight, design, and velocity being the same. Sectional density is a measurement of a bullet's weight compared to its diameter. The larger the number, the better (for penetration). A 150 grain .270 bullet has a SD of .278; a 150 grain .30 bullet has a SD of .226, so the .270 bullet should penetrate better. In fact, the 150 grain .270 bullet is very similar (actually slightly superior) to the 180 grain .30 bullet, which has a SD of .271. For practical purposes, the penetration of the 150 grain .270 and the 180 grain .30 bullets are nearly identical. For more on SD, read my article "The Sectional Density of Rifle Bullets."

A: Let me assure you that you can't miss fast enough to stop any kind of attack, and certainly not by a bear. Nor will peripheral hits get the job done. Your bullet must disable the animal so that he physically cannot continue the attack, or cause immediate death. Your entire family needs to understand and accept the need for precise bullet placement.

It would also be wise to spend the required time to keep your rifle in good condition. Do you really want to trust your life to a weapon that has not been properly maintained?

For myself, I would choose the Ruger M77R in .350 Rem. Mag. But it is made entirely of ferrous metal and will require more maintenance, particularly in a salt water environment, so it may not be the best choice for you.

In an autoloader I would recommend the Browning BAR Mk. II Lightweight Stalker in .338 Win. Mag. This rifle has a plastic stock and aluminum alloy receiver, which will somewhat reduce the maintenance required. It will kick harder than the Safari Grade BAR or Rem. 7400 in .30-06, but it is light and easy to carry and more effective than a .30-06. And the autoloading action really does reduce the felt recoil.

One possible compromise for your situation is the Marlin 1895GS. This is the stainless steel Guide Gun in .45-70 caliber. It does kick, no doubt about it, but less than the .450 Marlin version. The advantage of the .45-70 caliber is that you can use standard 405 grain factory loads for practice and to gain proficiency and then, if you wish, switch to powerful +P 350 grain loads from PMC or Cor-Bon for carry in bear country. And the rifle itself requires the least maintenance of the bunch due to its stainless steel construction. (It must still be maintained, however, particularly in a salt water environment.)

If you do decide on a .30-06, use the 220 grain bullets. And remember that bullet placement is everything!

A: Subsistence hunters are operating in a different environment than most sport hunters. They typically pass on all but the easiest shots, they can always come back tomorrow, they know game anatomy, they are excellent trackers, they have intimate knowledge of the local terrain, etc. I know, for example, that some of my Indian correspondents use the .30-30 for moose and elk with near 100% success. Get close, put the bullet into the heart or lungs, and a .30-30 class cartridge will do fine, no argument there.

But the average sport hunter does not have the skill or experience to get that close, and he only has a few day out of the entire year to hunt, and he sure does not have dogs to track down wounded game as subsistence hunters often do. He needs to be able to take longer and less favorable shots (he shouldn't, but human nature being what it is, he probably will), and he definitely needs to stop the animal quickly. He is not a tracker, so if an animal gets out of sight it is pretty likely to get away, even if it dies within 200 yards of where it was hit.

Since elk and moose are large animals with a lot of lung capacity, it makes sense to me to use a pretty big bullet and try to destroy as much lung tissue as possible. From my perspective, this destroys virtually no edible meat. I do not recommend shooting any table animal in the shoulder, flank, ham, or anyplace else that would ruin a lot of edible meat.

Remember, the recommendations you read in my articles are, of necessity, aimed at the general hunting population. They are not intended for the specialist, the substance hunter, or the professional guide. These people are much more experienced than the average hunter and already know what works for them in the conditions that they hunt.

A: Please see "Recommended Centerfire Hunting Rifles," as there is a bolt action safari rifle category there: http://www.chuckhawks.com/rec_cf_rifles.htm

You might also be interested in the article "Bolt Action Rifles for Dangerous Game": http://www.chuckhawks.com/bolt_rifles_dangerous_game.htm

With any hard recoiling rifle stock fit is paramount, so I would suggest that you purchase the rifle that best fits you.

A: The article in question ( "A Critical Look at Modern Hunting Rifles": http://www.chuckhawks.com/critical_look_T3.htm ) is NOT about Tikka T3 rifles. It is about how gun writers have failed their readers. Tikka T3 rifles were merely used as an example of a model that incorporates production shortcuts not usually identified in the reviews published in the popular sporting press. Every production short cut identified in the article is, in fact, employed in the manufacture of T3 rifles. The examples are completely factual and the article was based on test firing hundreds of hunting rifles over a period of more than 40 years and using many of them in the field.

Accuracy does not enter into it one way or the other, except that Tikka advertises certain accuracy claims that many of their production rifles (I'm not saying "all" or even "most") do not, on average, meet. (I'm not talking about a "best group" here, but the average group size with factory loaded ammo.) We have tested several Tikka T3 rifles and corresponded with a number of T3 owners and none of the rifles would consistently shoot 1" groups at 100 yards with factory loaded ammunition. That doesn't mean that your pair won't, but it does indicate that not all T3's will.

In any event, it is unimportant whether a big game hunting rifle will shoot .5 MOA, 1 MOA or 1.5 MOA groups from a bench rest. As you know, big game animals are large targets and offer a big heart/lung vital area to shoot at. A 2 MOA big game rifle is as deadly as a 1 MOA rifle in the field. As I stated, accuracy has nothing to do with the subject of the article or my use of the T3 as an example of a rifle that incorporates most of the production shortcuts known to man.

Other factors are more important to a hunting rifle than the ability to shoot tiny groups from a bench rest. Things like absolutely reliable function, including the most reliable extraction and ejection systems, the ability to single load a cartridge rapidly in an emergency and the rifle's ability to maintain the same point of impact when fired from a variety of positions (over impromptu rests, shooting sticks, offhand, from a tight sling, etc. (usually a function of stock rigidity and bedding precision) matter in a big game hunting rifle much more than pinpoint intrinsic accuracy. I don't much care whether one of my big game rifle shoots .5 MOA or 1.5 MOA groups from a bench rest, either way it will never cause me to miss a big game animal in the field due to a lack of intrinsic accuracy, but it must maintain its point of impact under field conditions. This mitigates against injection molded synthetic stocks and slipshod inletting, but you never read reviews in the popular gun press that tell you that.

Actually, If S&W had introduced their wretched "I-Bolt" rifle before I wrote the article I would have used that as my example, as it is worse than the T3. It sets new standards (lows) for a production rifle. Oddly, neither the T3 nor the I-Bolt are actually inexpensive rifles from the standpoint of the price to the consumer. It is the manufacturer's profit margin that is exceptionally high.

A: I set my triggers on big game rifles as near as possible to 3 pounds. I set varmint rifle triggers to about 2.5 pounds.

A: I have never purchased a firearm online, and I never will. Stories like yours are common. I only buy guns that I can inspect, from local dealers.

You should have returned the gun to the source (DPMS) for adjustment/repair (after extracting the stuck cartridge, of course). Having at one time worked in retail myself, I can tell you that no retailer is going to reimburse you for repairs conducted without their knowledge or permission and before they even had an opportunity to inspect the gun--they've been ripped off before, too. All warranties are voided by unauthorized adjustment or repair.

I'm surprised that your local gunsmith did not remind you of that before he agreed to work on your rifle. He's not required to do so by law, of course, but the smiths I know would have warned you as a matter of course. DPMS sounds like a good dealer to avoid, but you did make it easy for them to refuse to help you.

A: Whatever happens to USRAC will not immediately affect the ammunition supply, but the loss of one of the two major rifle makers supporting the WSM and WSSM calibers surely does not bode well for them. The Remington Short Action Ultra Mags (SAUM) already seem to be dying, which must be some kind of record for negative longevity.

In the long run, to succeed big all of the WSM and WSSM calibers except the .270 WSM would have to replace an existing, far more popular cartridge (7mm Rem Mag, .300 Win. Mag., .25-06, etc.). I don't see that happening, although I have been wrong before.

Historically, when two cartridges offer identical ballistics, the less popular one eventually fades away. I think that is the likely fate of the WSM, SAUM and WSSM cartridges, with the possible exception of the .270 WSM. Whether there is enough difference between the .270 Win., .270 WSM, and .270 Wby. Mag. for the .270 WSM to live on becomes the question. But there has been a perceived demand for a short action .270 since the thirties, so perhaps the .270 WSM will fill that need.

Note that all of the old Remington rimless line of cartridges (.25, .30, .32, .35) that were ballistically identical to the established Winchester line (.25-35, .30-30, .32 Spec.), died out except the .35 Rem. It was the only one that was not a duplicate of an existing cartridge.