Just for discussion's sake and the fun of looking back a bit, I ask the question...how did the American old-timers cope when they were at such a disadvantage in sporting big-game rifle and cartridge choices?

These days with all our long distance rifles, flat shooting cartridges, premium bullets, and so on and so forth...how can we compare what they had with what we have? Were they just supermen & super stalkers?

Sure, they had the .30-'06, though it was never easily available in commercial bolt-action sporters until after WWI. And in 1925, the .270 Winchester came along. Of course there were the various "x 57s" available, almost always in guns from the European continent, with all the import costs and troubles that entailed. There were a few others too...the 6.5 Mannlicher, .280 Ross/Kynoch, etc., but one could hardly call them them American icons.

Dontcha just bet American big game hunters would have given their socks to have some really powerful .30s, .35s, and even .40 caliber rimless, truly flat shooting magazine riles holding 5 rounds or more of easily fed, beltless, rimless, standard length (not magnum) cartridges, made and sold here in North America by American factories? Back 90 years ago (in the '20s), that must have seemed like a dream of heaven, eh?

I mean, think about the enhanced game-taking possibilities back then with a series of cartridges such as:

1) A .30 caliber cartridge, shooting 150 grain pills at between 3,000 and 3,400 fps, just like today's .300 Weatherby, .300
win Mag, etc.?

2) A .35 caliber, shooting 250 grain bullets from factory ammo at about 2,975 f.p.s.?

3) A .40 caliber, which would shoot 300 grain bullets like those of the .405 Winchester, but at 3,000 f.p.s. instead of the 2,200 of the Winchester?

Well, y'all, they DID have such cartridges! And guess what? They were eventually discontinued, partly (though not entirely) because of lack of call for them!

But the brass to make them from is on the market now, made by Hornady!!

The .30 was manufactured by Western Cartridge Company (Winchester) clear up until part of a year into WW II. It was the .30 Newton, discontinued in 1942. To give you a vision of what it looked like, it was rimless and beltless. It fitted length-wise into 1903 Springfield or 1917 American Enfield actions without lengthening them.

It held 24% more powder than the .30-06 (81.5 grains), vs. the 23% more (80.5 grains of the same powder) which the .300 H&H holds.


The .35 was also made and distributed by Western until 1938 when it died because almost no rifles were being chambered for it...after the arrival on the scene of Winchester's M-70, which was chambered in the .375 H&H.

Guess why Western (a division of Winchester at the time) didn't keep making ammo for a competing (and possibly better) cartridge that Winchester didn't chamber for?


It was, as you have probably guessed, the .35 Newton. Factory advertised spec for the ammo WAS a 250 gr. bullet @ 2,975 f.p.s. (But who knows what it actually delivered? Not me....)

The last of this troika was the .400 Newton. It never made factory status as a cartridge, due to the untimely demise of the Newton enterprises. But, the Newton firm did reportedly turn out just 4 of them before everything went gunnysack. A load reported as recommended by Newton was 69 grains of #10 powder and a 300 gr. spitzer bullet, for a muzzle velocity of 3,042 f.p.s.

Well, like they say, time and tide wait for no man. But, tides at least do come back in periodically. Apparently, so do cartridges.

Now that we have the .375 Ruger in the components stream, we have basic brass for all three of the Newton cartridges available to us, and I am hearing of all sorts of wildcats being planned or made using it.

For three really good ones, maybe we should just "channel" Charlie Newton.

In the meantime, I'm not quite as "thrilled" by all the "new" cartridges as I might have been. Maybe the old-timers weren't all that "dumb" and disadvantaged.

What do you guys think?

Well coming fomr my pop's words, "if the 30-30 won't get it, we got the '06 and there ain't hardly anything it won't get."

Growing up we had several rifles, but none were bigger than the '06, and none put more meat on the table either.

That said pop was somewhat conservative on his loading and shooting being he was a boy during the end of the depression with 4 brothers, 5 sisters, and his pop being killed while he was young. They knew what putting food on the table economically meant. One shot, one kill, clean it and eat it.

Today, I am happy with the choices of being able to shoot some of the choices we have. Do I do it often, well since the surplus powders have all but dried up, not as much as I would like. I do however still shoot my standard '06 cased rifles on a regular basis and just finally got my 25-06 AI finish up and ready for load testing. Yea I like to burn 95grs of powder and hit small target WAY out there, but it cost to do it, and right now I cannot afford, much less find the primers or powder to make it happen.

They knew how to hunt, we (okay some of YOU!) just know how to shoot game. More of my Elk and Mule Deer have been killed under 100 yards than over. Like three-fourths of them. I always just liked to shoot, so it was a top priority for me to cast my own bullets, load my own ammunition, and go shoot three or four days a week. About thirty-five weeks or more a year, less of the snow months every year since I hit fifty; I get out and just wander around the mountains of Idaho. Too many of the people, even here, are not in a position to do that for various reasons. If you can't stalk game, you need the crutch a super-magnum and high magnification scope and rangefinders provide. It ain't right or wrong, it just is...

Rich

I see I shouldn't have posted this thread in a dry humourous way, as I did.

My question wasn't serious when I asked how they managed. It was intended to point out that the cartridges and ballistics of the day were much more advanced than many of today's shooters realize. Some of their cartridges were just simply enough ahead of their time that they never became great sellers. Other things figured into that too, of course, like the First World War, the Depression, the Second World War, etc....

Errm 275 Holland and Holland anybody? Also loaded by Winchester.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
My question wasn't serious when I asked how they managed. It was intended to point out that the cartridges and ballistics of the day were much more advanced than many of today's shooters realize. Some of their cartridges were just simply enough ahead of their time that they never became great sellers. ...

Made me wonder what they would have performed like with "todays" Powders, Bullets and Barrels.

Without the benefit of good glass, I imagine the 30 Newton didn't really offer that much to hunters when it first appeared. Only the well heeled could afford a bolt action rifle in an era where lever guns still ruled, and the depression forced one to use what was at hand. Heck, my Gramps kept the family fed with a 44-40! It served double duty as he had bullets and paper shot capsules for it...

I would say the biggest differents that the old timers had is that they didn't have the good optics.

My Dad who started hunting in the early 30's put a weaver scope on his 300 sav after WWII.

He said a good scope helped him kill more game then any thing else. He had 20/15 vision and could spot game long before others could.

The ability to accurately place a shot picking holes through the brush ect was worth a lot more then the rifle or cailber.

No matter what the caliber or bullet size if you can't put in on the target where you want it dosen't do you any good.

AC: Thoughtful post. I really need to read more about Charles Newton. I shoot his .250-3000 ...

In the spirit this thread is intended, hopefully, I would add, or suggest, the following:

State your starting date: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940 etc.

Many of the big game cartridges we now 'worship' were available around the First World War and shortly there after.

9.3x62 Mauser (birthed in 1906) was available in perfectly adequate, reliable and functional looking sporters from Mauser, Germany. Most 'African Settlers' used one of these and not some "Safe Queen" London creation.

The .404 Jeffrey (birthed 1910?), a German cartridge anyway, was available in a 300 grain 'light game' loading and was shifting along at circa 2600 fps. This, BTW, could be built on a stadard Mauser '98 action.

Highly advanced for their time, the .300 & .350 Newton cartridges were loaded by mainstream ammunition companies. If Charles Newton had better business sense post the First World War, who knows, we might not now be discussing cartridges like the .300 Win Mag, .338Win Mag etc. His rifles certainly had a number of innovative features which were subsequently copied by other manufacturers.

The Winchester Mod 54 came out in the earler 1920s I believe, followed by the Model 70 in 1936 (date?).

Major advances were made in telescopic sights during the First World War. By the end of the "War to end all wars", the UK Aldiss (spelling?) scope sight was one of the best 'military' scope sights around. These would have become available, along with their German and Austrian equivalents, as government surplus.

The USA were blessed with some truly gifted optical engineers, producing top class 'scopes in the 1930s and early 1940s - Lyman, Noske, Weaver (for the popcorn & peanut gallery seats . BTW, yes I do have Nick Stroebel's book on old rifle scopes. It is a most interesting read!

So, even if you were 'economically challenged', if you lived in the USA, you could arm yourself with a good rifle etc at an affordable cost. Starting with a war trophy bring back Mauser '98 rifle, rebarrel it to .35 Whelan or re-chamber to an 8mm-06 Improved, a Weaver etc scope sight and you are in business. The Americans had the advantage over many others with more liberal gun laws and advanced reloading knowledge and practices (relative to other countries), added to which there was the abundance of readily affordable, available ordinance brass etc.

So, I agree with the sentiments that the Old Timers were not quite so disadvantged as the 'modern' shooting community likes to think. Afterall, they 'survived' in the field.

I'm thinking of all the surplus .30-40 Krags that the government sold- lotta deer accounted for, some still.

Seems to me if a hunter has a rifle that he can put two successive shots into a, say, fifteen inch square with some consistency, he could hunt out to a stretched 200 yards his whole life with it.

My .02 and a guess.

If you know how to shoot and hunt you don't "need" a flat shooting cartridge...............

I always thought bullet construction was the limiting factor to early high velocity cartridges

i read somewhere that the New York police chased speeding motorists with bicycles in 1898.

the same year as the .450NE was introduced.
the 6.5x55, 7x57, .30-30, 8x57 was already invented.
we have a lot better optics and equal quality guns is cheaper today.
sporting firearms technology has more or less stood still compared to everything else.

the .318WR is 100 years this year.
it would have been interesting to back to that time and asked how they imagine a hunting rifle of 2010 would be like?
something very futuristic i would think.

and here we are toting the same mausers, still shooting metal jacketed lead bullets from 50-120 year old cartridges.
still arguing light and fast vs heavy and slow.

if it aint broken, don't fix it.

In the words of a popular politician ( be there such ) "I can't remember" roger

The starting date I had in mind was circa 1,900...give or take about 10 years.

Just to throw in a few supplemental tidbits to some of the comments above...the Model 54 Winchester wasn't available in the "early" 20's...it was first marketed in 1925.

The Remington which became the Model 30 WAS available in the very early 1920s...they simply kept on making 1917 "American Enfields" after WW-I ended, with a few sporterizing modifications, especially the stock...and sold them to civilians instead of the military.

The .35 Whelen was not available as a factory cartridge until at least two decades after World War II. As a wildcat from the three principal early suppliers (Griffin & Howe, Hoffman Arms Company, and Neidner) the low end rifle cost was $75...three weeks gross wages for many at the time. But, as pointed out by a contributor above, the 9.3x62 sure was present! Its use may have been limited in the U.S. by the more than 35% import tariffs, as well as the resentment of anything "German" or "Dutch" following WW-I.

Actually, good glass was also available in both the U.S. and in Europe.

I had some very early sporters from Europe & England, which had high quality Zeiss scopes on them. Modern lens coatings weren't yet "invented", so fogging and various image aberrations were found to varying degrees, but some of the glass was quite good. My .303 Mauser/Rigby had a Zeiss/Hensoldt for example which was as clear as anything I have looked through in recent years. Folks like Fecker, Litschert, and John Unertl were also in the wings. Aldis and several other Brit firms also turned out very useable glass.

Mounts were more of a problem. Though quite good ones (from an ajustment standpoint) were available, not all were very sturdy....but again, many, particularly the German and English ones, were as sturdy as a rock wall. Unfortunately, many of those foreign mounts simply weren't known or available in the U.S. at all. How many books have YOU seen on English or German scope mounts of the 1900-1935 era, for instance?

There were also premium bullets in those days...The French, for instance, had all bronze monometal bullets in the late 1,800s. There were numerous American bullets with double jackets, solid wire centers, paper insulators between jacket and core, serrated noses and thick bases, all sorts of stuff.

I suspect that for American hunters one of their major difficulties during the first half of the 20th century was really one of time...getting the time to travel by train, horse, wagon, ship and so on to where the really desirable big game (sheep, elk, grizzly, caribou, polar bear, musk oxen, etc.) was available to hunt. When I was born, for instance, there were NO reliable large airline companies anywhere in the world, and crashes were still just part of the normally expected hazards of travel. Ship was how one normally got to Asia, Africa, South America or even Alaska to hunt.

Another of their problems, made more difficult by the relatively primitive communications they had at their beck and call, was sorting through the chaff to find the wheat kernals in all the ad hype of THEIR day...a problem we still haven't whipped.

I think "Enfield Spares" mentioned the .275 belted H&H magnum above. Yes, it was available about 1910 and was a great round. It was the same length and base diameter as today's 7 m/m Rem Mag, so it fit in standard actions. It had a very sharp shoulder, and a very moderate taper to the case so it held substantial powder. Performance was almost exactly that of the much later (1950s) 7x61 Sharpe and Hart introduced in the Schultz & Larsen rifles. I owned a matched pair of .275 H&Hs in Holland & Holland Mausers with Zeiss scopes. One was a very fine game rifle. The other, using the same, factory, ammo would blow primers every shot. Neither was inexpensive, even bought as a pair.

Incidentally, as Richard F. Simmons' 1947 book "Wildcat Cartridges" shows, a great many of the really zippy "wildcats" of the '20s though the '40s, in all bore sizes, were made using the .275 H&H brass as a component supply stock.

AC! You certainly are a stand out contributor. Your retentivity in depth is certainly impressive along with your easy going stlye of conveying information and inspiring participation. Doing what you do here and how you do it without coming accross as some kind of pontif or ego nut is turely refreshing. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

What about:

280 Flanged, circa 1906, 140gr bullet at 2800fps
26 BSA, circa 1921, 110gr bullet at 3100fps

Yes, well noted Grenadier.

Speaking of the .26 BSA, don't forget the .330 BSA, an almost duplicate of the .338 Win Mag which came out right about the same time in the 1921-era, approx 35 years before the Winchester round.

It was reportedly developed specifically for export to the U.S. and Canadian markets, and was built on P-14 actions surplused/salvaged from the First World War. BSA needed the money and hoped to get some that way. Unfortunately, the great bulk of North Americans ignored it. I bought one at an auction in England in 1971 and used it in Canada when I lived there. Am sorry I ever sold it....would have made a nice curiosity to bring to "the States" with me.

It was a belted short Magnum, and used .338" bullets (NOT .333" as E. Keith used).

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
Your retentivity in depth is certainly impressive

Roger, you give me far too much credit. It is not a strength that I remember all that old stuff. It is a weakness caused by age.

I can't remember when to take my pills every day, can't recall what I had for lunch, have to call my wife "Hey You!" because I can't dig up her name from my gray matter.

But the stuff 70 + years or more ago...now that I can remember like it's still happening.....!!

Well not quite as old as your post suggests , but when i was in mt teens, our next door neighbor was the one fellow in the hood that seemed to know the most about hunting. Elk and moose were his 2 favotites. His one and only rifle was a Savage 99 in 308. He told me that in all the years he hunted he never shot an animal more than 100 yards. I don't know if I know anyone today that has ever shot an animal that close in the Elk and moose species. FS

quote:

I don't know if I know anyone today that has ever shot an animal that close in the Elk and moose species. FS

Truth be known most Deer, Elk and Moose are shot at under 100 yards still. For some reason the ones you hear most about are well beyond that distance. Antelope now thats a whole other story!.............................

My dad was a young man through the late 1920's and early 30's. As with most farmers of the time things were pretty tough. If it wasn't for a bit of salt pork and an occasional chicken there wouldn't have been much meat on anyones table.Remember there was no electricity in the rural areas at that time and certainly no deep freezers.Anyone who hunted was fortunate to get a break from the salt pork.At the time the 30-30 was considered "THE "rifle to have. Granpa had an old 45-90 that they shot 45-70 ammo in because 45-90 shells were very hard to come by.That old rifle accounted for quite a few moose and the odd elk. A couple neighbours had 303 britsh rifles and they were great moose killers with the old 215 gr bullets. Dad got a 30-40 Krag in a Win 95 rifle from a neighbour who was from somewhere in Europe and was afraid to register the rifle during the second war. That was considered quite an elk and moose gun. They did quite well back then partly because they were "hunters" and not just "shooters".

My Grandfather's favorite rifle was the .256 Newton. That is, until it was stolen from the back window rifle rack in his GMC pickup.

I still have boxes of W-W factory ammo for the rifle. I guess this chambering was one of the first 6.5's introduced to the American market?

And no mention of VonHoff yet.

I think the part of the equation we are overlooking here is the wariness of the game. I think probably game was less wary in the past because of less population. Being less wary, a hunter could get within 30-30 kill range and effectively harvest game. I know that I am amazed today going to Montana or Idaho, the deer stand and watch you and are comfortable within 100 yards. Where I live, if they can smell you, you are not going to get within 300 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:
I'm thinking of all the surplus .30-40 Krags that the government sold- lotta deer accounted for, some still.

Seems to me if a hunter has a rifle that he can put two successive shots into a, say, fifteen inch square with some consistency, he could hunt out to a stretched 200 yards his whole life with it.

My .02 and a guess.

The 30/40 Krag is a very sensible cartridge.. in the past and still today..

quote:

Originally posted

....never shot an animal more than 100 yards. I don't know if I know anyone today that has ever shot an animal that close in the Elk and moose species. FS

Well, I am from your neck of the woods...lived at 11037 81st avenue in Edmonton, to be exact. I shot numerous moose and guided some other folks to them. All but one of my moose and my customers' moose were shot at well under 100 yards and none over 200 yards. I have also shot several very nice 6x6 elk here in the 'States, and the longest shot on any of them was 180 yards. My control hunting shots on elk were often much longer, but not my sport hunting ones.

The point here wasn't whether faster, flatter shooting cartridges were or are needed. Simply my inept way of pointing out that they were available, whether needed or not.

Obviously not a lot of folks who were hunters felt they needed them, or they would have sold better and lasted longer. I suspect the gun industry, despite its current media splurge to convince us otherwise, MAY find that the bulk of shooters who shoot only to hunt still feel that way. Time will tell, I guess.

A C

Had they drained McKernan lake when you were in town? Well before my time of course. You must of went to old scona.
Regards greg

Last couple of moose I shot were killed with a 9,3x74R as I just never got caught up in all the latest wiz bang super flat magnums.
Tell ya what, it makes me sick watching those tv shows where they brag about 890 yard one shot kills. I bet they have a shit load of editing to do to get one animal who drops at the shot.

Hunting is like most sports, it's about the person and not his equipment that can bring sucess.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted

....never shot an animal more than 100 yards. I don't know if I know anyone today that has ever shot an animal that close in the Elk and moose species. FS

Well, I am from your neck of the woods...lived at 11037 81st avenue in Edmonton, to be exact. I shot numerous moose and guided some other folks to them. All but one of my moose and my customers' moose were shot at well under 100 yards and none over 200 yards. I have also shot several very nice 6x6 elk here in the 'States, and the longest shot on any of them was 180 yards. My conrol hunting shots on elk were often much longer, but not my sport hunting ones.

The point here wasn't whether faster, flatter shooting cartridges were or are needed. Simply my inept way of pointing out that they were available, whether needed or not.

Obviously not a lot of folks who were hunters felt they needed them, or they would have sold better and lasted longer. I suspect the gun industry, despite its current media splurge to convince us otherwise, MAY find that the bulk of shooters who shoot only to hunt still feel that way. Time will tell, I guess.

A C
From what I can recall about these fellows is that for the most part they only had one rifle, and for this group all of them shot 308 with 1 guy with a 270 and my dad with a 30-06. Shotguns were a different story, all of them had Win model 12's, the pit field shooting duck guns were 20 gauge and the upland guns were all 12 gauge. First time I ever saw a true case of Imperial shotshell ammo, nice wooden box with 20 boxes inside, paper of course. 7 1/2 shot for everything.
Regards Greg

Alberta, this is a fine thread. Thank you.

With your 1900 +/- ten years paradign, let's try for some succinct context. The 7x57 Mauser and 30.06 both fit, and only a slight expansion is required for the .375H&H. As to (bolt) rifles, we have (among others) the Mauser 98 and the Springfield '03.

Not a lot of improvement over either those calibers or the Mauser 98 since then, agree?

quote:

Originally posted by mauser93:
Alberta, this is a fine thread. Thank you.

You're welcome! My pleasure...

With your 1900 +/- ten years paradign, let's try for some succinct context. The 7x57 Mauser and 30.06 both fit, and only a slight expansion is required for the .375H&H. As to (bolt) rifles, we have (among others) the Mauser 98 and the Springfield '03.

Not a lot of improvement over either those calibers or the Mauser 98 since then, agree?

I certainly agree. The Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 also fits time-wise, though not American made, and was a nice light mountain rifle used by many of the better-heeled American hunters in Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.

Actually, I meant 1900 plus/minus ten years as a starting point. I'd extend that up through about 1930, plus up to maybe 5 years more for an end to the era I had in mind. LOTS of other good American hunting rifles & cartridges in there, including the Newtons, the Remington M-30 variations, the Winchester M-54, the G&H sporters, and on and on.

I'd NOT include the Model 70 Winchester just because it is still made. I was thinking of the rifles and cartridges no longer made. It is them the big companies never give credit to when flogging their new "Wunder-rifles" and amazing "new" cartridges.

quote:

In the meantime, I'm not quite as "thrilled" by all the "new" cartridges as I might have been. Maybe the old-timers weren't all that "dumb" and disadvantaged.

Hey watch that talk about old timers will ya !.

They neither were stupid or disadvantaged , they used what was available . I venture

to say for the most part were superior iron site proficient , than many of today's shooters

hunters . As far as hunting goes it's not really a fair comparison then and now .

IMO :The main reason is Game was much more plentiful and hunting areas were far larger than

they are now days . So stalking was easier back then and shooting closer was the norm .

Many also hunted on the ranches farms open areas where they grew up ,so were

REAL FAMILIAR with their environment . Many of us , Myself included are pretty much forced

to hunt in areas we're unfamiliar with out of state game grabbers , as I over heard one

fellow refer to me . I didn't deny it . I also PAID a Hell of a lot more $$$$ for the

privilege . Some states have priced typical hunts beyond reason for Non Resident

hunters . I understand the arguments but don't agree with the cost .

It's different if ones trophy hunting you expect that , but State Game doesn't

differentiate between meat hunters an Trophy hunters . A license and a Tag are just

that . Just my take on things ...

Well Doc, I ertainly agree that hunters were MUCH more iron-sight proficient. I also agree most of them hunted "harder", and that they probably knew the terrain better.

I don't agree that the game was more numerous then. There are FAR more deer in the U.S. now than there were in the 1920s and 30s. Ditto elk. There are now elk seasons open in states where in the 1920s and 30s there was nary an elk to be seen. Clear cutting timber in the Pac NW also greatly increased their numbers where they were already in healthy herds, as it greatly increased the new growth on which they feed.

Now that clear-cutting is becoming a thing of the past in the Pac NW, the State of Oregon, for example, has been actually paying farmers in recent years to plant food especially for elk. Without it they have been starving in some areas and raiding food crops grown for humans.

If you don't believe that, call ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife) and ask them.

Too bad clear cutting is politically incorrect. Actually clear-cutting on an 80 year or longer cycle was a good thing for land owners, the forests, and the animals. By on a cycle, I mean like I used to do with my place. On a 120 acre plot, I would cut a bit over an acre a year...which would mean there were always some trees over 90 years old, always some 89 years old, always some 88, etc., and at the other end of the cycle, always some 1 year old, 2 years old, etc.


I always got some timber money to pay the taxes on the place, the wildlife got food from the new growth, millworkers had jobs, and consumers got good Doug Fir lumber.

Multiply that by hundreds (or thousands) of landowners, and you had sustainable families, wildlife, forests, and renewable building resources. True "green".

Moose numbers HAVE declined inside the "south 48".

quote:

The starting date I had in mind was circa 1,900...give or take about 10 years.

Maybe out in left field but how about 30-30 and Mod 94? I used mine throughout the 60's and it was a game killin son of a gun (pun intended).
Had to keep my shots inside 150 yards and carry without a shell in the barrel but it held 7 in the mag and I could cycle that action like Chuck Connors in "The Rifleman". Didn't ever know I had it rough.

None of them lost any sleep over ballistics anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
None of them lost any sleep over ballistics anyway.

Yes. It's called hunting and knowing how to shoot. Any moron can buy an ubermagnum and just point and shoot..........

"cartridge development could have stopped with the 8x57" Jeffeoso

In my opinion the only thing we really have over the "old-timers" are the premium bonded bullets like swift and woodleigh. And our better optical technology.

Those old cartridges with thier old ballistics got the job done anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by TwoZero:
In my opinion the only thing we really have over the "old-timers" are the premium bonded bullets like swift and woodleigh. And our better optical technology.
Those old cartridges with thier old ballistics got the job done anyway.

Oh I think Technically advanced smokeless powder comes in there some place. roger