Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    I believe that the unofficial Bear record was taken in the early
    60's and weighed in at 550 lbs. For the same reason as you stated
    before it was not weighed at an official check-in station or that
    it wasn't checked by a Fish and Game official. this was in the Union
    Leader within the past couple of years. I am pretty sure that they
    were thinking of making it the official record at the time of the
    newspaper printing.
    							Bret

    The Bear in mention was taken by a friend of my fiancee's father
    and he lives in Salem,N.H.. I met him once in the woods hunting
    before being introduce later on. He carried a picture of the "Bruin"
    in his wallet, what a Bear! The reason for the first article was
    due to the original Fish & Game burning down with all records being
    destroyed. His son was the one who brought up the documentation
    on the kill and the F&G said they would recognise it. Does anyone
    remember the F&G documenting kills back then with a member of the
    F&G being there? This bear belongs in the record books along with
    the prestige of the hunter who killed it.
    
                                                    Guy

    I agree that this hunter and bear should be in the record books
    but I have done a little checking on my own. In the November 1988
    issue of Outdoor Life, Eastern Edition they mention that the record,
    or should I say the unofficial record, is 550 pounds and was killed
    several years earlier. It does not say by whom or when but I have
    sent this question to "Ask Us" of the Manchester Union Leader and
    should see it appear any day now. I don't mean to start an argument
    or anything like that. But this hunter that you talk of does belong
    in the record books, just maybe not first place.
    								Bret

    In the November 20th, 1988 issue of the New Hampshire Sunday News
    on page A2 in the "Ask Us" column is stated the unofficial Bear
    record for New Hampshire is listed at 500 lbs. and taken in 1961
    (I think, will reprint the article tomorrow). It does not however
    say by whom or where.
    								Bret

    My question to "Ask Us" was what were the official and unofficial
    records for bear taken in N.H. Her answer was this(reprinted without
    permission):
    	The officially accepted largest bear taken in N.H. is 475 lbs.
    It was taken this fall in Conway. The unofficial recordholder is
    500 pounds. This bear was taken in the 1960's and a local conservation
    officer who saw the bear supports the 500 pound claim, but it was
    not officially weighed.
    							Bret

    Just read the article myself, the guy who took the 475 lb bear was
    from Glen N.H......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    and for anyone who cares to know the guy took it with a .270   can you
    imagine that.... a little .270, ha!!!  Eat your heart out all you
    magnum fans.....    Fra

    Fra,
    Although I'm impressed with the .270 (after all didn't Jack O'Connor
    use it to take at least one of each animal on the face of this earth?),
    I can't help but mention that the load used to take that bear
    incorporated a 130 grain bullet and it took 3 of them to kill it.
    Maybe a better shot could have been more efficient, but I bet the
    same guy would have been more effective with a little more punch
    (magnum? maybe/maybe not).                         
    
    Dave (who beginning to favor the 7MM Express Remington)
    

    I think I would just as soon have my .300 Winchester Magnum with
    me than a .270. Much more killing power for Bear. I think much 
    more accurate too, even at long distances.
    							Bret

    RE:.8    as far as accuracy goes keep thinking....  a .300 mag might 
    be nice to have along, but definately not necessary...  I know guys
    that have taken deer with 2 and 3 shots from an 06, so 3 shots into
    a 450 lb beer from a .270 is very acceptable, besides, article never
    said the beer was hit 3 times...
    
    Fra

    RE: .9
    
    Fra,
    I believe the info regarding 3 shots, etc. came directly from the
    NH Fish and Game Field Notes (I'll double check).  If my memory
    is correct the article also gave the impression that the bear was
    shot from a long distance although I don't think they mentioned
    range.  The guy who took the bear didn't even think it was a mature
    animal until he approached it (this is what leads me to beleive
    that it was 2 or 3 hundred yards off).  The article did mention
    that the hunter spotted the bear a couple of days prior to killing
    it so it wasn't one of those chance things.  This guy was hunting
    bear (and probably only bear) when he killed it.  
    
    To avoid an argument over accuracy/range lets just leave it to personal
    preference... after all, our guns are just tools and its the guy behind
    them that makes the difference!    
    

    .9 I have hunted bear with a 30/30. And have seen plenty of people
    succesful with just about everything there is. but one shot with
    a 300 would do more than one shot from a 270, wouldn't you think?
    							Bret

    Sorry, can't resist.
    
    The thing I love about the .300 magnum is that you can load it
    up or down to do almost anything in North America.  I feel that
    you can certainly get an overkill load worked up for black bear
    in a .300 mag.  This is probably better than underkill.
    
    There are many people who are much more knowledgeable than me that
    say a .270 is good for this cause.  Many people claim the .270 is
    a great Elk round.  
    
    I don't own a .270, but the more Fra brings it up, the more I start
    thinking about getting one and testing it out.
    
    How big of a bullet would one use to hunt black bear and how fast
    would it be going?  
    
    Is it correct in assuming we are talking < 100 yards?
    
    Brett.

    In looking at the .270 bullets for reloads it appears that they
    come in two flavors: 130 grains and 150 grains. (At least, those
    are the only two sizes they carry at MVP Sports, which seems to
    have a good selection) I would imagine one would want to use the
    150 grain bullet with a good load of powder to get a round powerful
    enough to down a really large animal. To be honest, the bullets
    may not be big around, but they sure look mean. :-)
    
    The Doctah (who dreams of owning an 12 gauge 11-87 and a BAR in .270)

    I believe that Federal premium might make another bullet weight
    for the .270. I had thought that there were only 3 bullett weights
    in .300 mag, being 150, 180 and 220, but now I have seen Federal
    premium in 200 grain boattails. I have not tried this ammo yet but
    am told it is the best.
    							Bret

	Yea Bret, I think I saw a 165 grain Federal Premo for the .270.
	The 130 bullet they sell is the same load I use in my .270, its
	hot and I would not think twice to shoot a bear with it.  You're
	also right about the 200 grain bullet for the .300 mag.  I've 
	used it to take two elk.  Still like the .270 best though.  I've
	taken lots of game from antelope to 6 point elk, 12 points for
	you easterners.  Like its been said many times before, its not
	so much the caliber as it is who's behing the trigger.  I was
	hunting bear two years ago and my .270 was with me.

    Bret,
    
    The .300 may come in a small assortment of bullets.  However, you
    can load any .30 caliber bullet you want into it.  I've loaded mine
    from 110 grain to 180 grain.  I'm not crazy about the 220 grain
    because I don't do much elephant hunting.
    
    I was ecstatic last night.  I saw the new Remington catalog and
    they have a full page add about their new .300 Weatherby Mag line.
    They now sell rifles and ammo.  This is great because it will bring
    the price of brass down.  A box of weatherby loads costs 25-30
    bucks.  I'm hoping Remington will bring it down a little.  You can
    maul a bear with a .300 mag.
    
    I'm still interested in .270 for at least Antelope and to see how
    it shoots.  .15 thinks it's fine for bear.  Who am I to argue.
    
    Brett.

    Brett,

	Since you wondered, I'll pass my experience with the .270 and antelope.
	I use the 130 grain SPBT.  Don't recall the exact specs I load at,
	but its going around 3100 fps and has about 100 lbs less energy
	than a 150 grain 7mm.  I've watched antelope that I've shot standing
	still, shake on impact and drop on the spot.  Ones I've hit running
	continue for about 50 yards, not uncommon for any caliber, and drop.
	What I really like is taking those antelope that think they are
	standing out of range.  Big surprise to loose their head at 300 yards.
	On any game that I've shot with this load, if bone is hit the bullet
	goes off like a grenade.  Heart and lung shots that hit a rib shread
	both, head and neck shots ruin a cape, and as with any high power
	load an angle shot through the lungs that hits the shoulder going
	out trashes it.  The reason I don't have a problem using it on a
	400 lb bear is that its dropped elk twice that size.  I do realize
	that a bear is a tougher beast, but bullet placement works for me.
	I do like the .300, it when loaded with the Federal Premo 200 grain,
	has the same drop as the .270, but the energy is close to another
	800 - 1000 foot pounds.  Its going to Alaska with me when I go for
	bear up there, now we're talking BIG bear.  Now this is just my
	opinion and you all know like something else, everyone has one.

	Gordon (who_hates_getting_flamed_on_for_his_opinion)

    re: -.1
    
    So who flamed you?
    
    I love to read these discussions.  Makes me want to go out
    and buy a .270.  You've got a lot of good hunting experiences
    to lend credibility to the load.
    
    You certainly aren't suffering from any lack of confidence in your
    shooting ability.  But success builds that.
    
    By the way, I find it irritating that no one builds a 130 grain
    .30 caliber bullet suitable for hunting.  They make a flat tip and
    a hollow point.  Why these configurations, I have no idea.  The
    .270 offers you the choice of the 130 grain.
    
    Brett.
    

    re: -.1
    
    >So who flamed you?
    
    Brett,

	Thanks for your reply.  I am always happy to try to add something
	of benefit to a topic I feel knowledgeable in.  I was not referencing
	you or anyone else in this particular note.  There was another note,
	something about "Rambo ...", where it was asked for our opinions on
	the subject.  I voiced my opinion on the difficult and contraversial(sp)
	topic only to be miss-interpreted of my opinion and shot at.  I deleted
	my replies to that one and have been a bit gun shy to reply in this
	conference since.  No hard feelings meant Brett, and I hope none taken.

    Gordon

    re. .16
    
    I must have missed something.  Did Remington buy out Weatherby??
    I am a Weatherby fan and carry a 270 for deer, antelope and elk.
     My goal in life is to get a 257 and a 300, but not enough money
    yet.
    
    
    Ken

    re -1 
    
    nope. Remington is chambering the 700 Classic for 1989 in .300 Wby.
    magmun in honor of Roy Weatherby. they are also loading the ammo
    in 180 and 220 grain loadings.
    
    btw   Repeating Arms Co is offering the model 70 winchester in .270
    and .300 wby magnum for 1989.  The american rifleman featured the
    new m70 in .270 wby as their test rifle of the month.
    
    
    carl

    Ken,
    
    Carl is correct.  There is a growing movement to the Weatherby
    rounds.  I don't care what bullets Remington uses, I want the 
    brass!
    
    You have good taste.  When I think about a .270, I think 
    .270 WM in the back of my mind.  I too would like a .257 WM
    in addition.  I carry my .300 WM all over the NW.  It's the perfect
    gun.  
    
    What do you think?  Will you consider the Remington or Repeating
    arms models?
    
    Love those belted cases.
    
    Brett.      
    

    
    
    
    		Is this another "Is 30-06 too much for Deer" Topics?
    
    
    			;-)
    
    
    				Mike

    RE:
    >>> By the way, I find it irritating that no one builds a 130 grain
    .30 caliber bullet suitable for hunting.  They make a flat tip and
    a hollow point. <<<

    Bret,
    
    Hornady makes a 30 Caliber 130 gr. SP (#3020)
    
    keith
         

    I own a 30/06 and a 300 win mag but with all this talk about a .270
    maybe I should get one. I have been interested in getting a browning
    stainless stalker but couldn't think of a caliber to get it in that
    I would like, until now that is. I was kind of leaning to a 25/06
    but after reading all this input it seems to me that the .270 might
    be the better choice. I don't have the specs in front of me but
    I think the .270 out performs the 25/06 by a good margin.
    							Bret
    
    
    Glad to see topics like this

    RE: LAST 10 OR SO       CAN I OPEN A CAN OF WORMS OR WHAT.... ;^)
    
    
    Regarding the 300 winchester magnum
    
    Brett,  I don't think it would be a wise decision to go down to a 
    130 grn bullet for hunting, unless it was used exclusively for 
    varminting.  The manufacturers make 130 grn and 110 grn loads
    but they are designed for varminting/small game. If used on larger
    game such as antelope/whitetail you would have non-fatal surface
    wounds if the bullet hits bone, and if fatal, too much margin for
    lost game.
    
    You'd be much better off going with the 150/165 grn pills, both
    can be pushed to over 3000 fps, and trajectories are very good.
    The only problem with the cartridge (if it is a problem at all)
    is the neck is very short.  When using this cartridge, it is imperative
    that the reloader use near maximum loads, reduced loads with slow
    burning powders can produce dangerous hangfires and large muzzle
    flashes.                                                           
    
    As far as the 270 weatherby mag is concerned, the difference in
    velocity over the 270 is marginal, approx 100 fps faster in the
    130 grn load, and 50-100 fps in the 150 gnd loading.  downrange
    trajectories show them both to be within 2"-7" of each other at 
    the 400-500 yard ranges, which is again negligible.
        
    One thing everyone should take into consideration is that with all
    loadings, the fastest bullet does not necessarily mean the most
    accurate.  To get good accuracy in some guns, certain reloads have
    to be loaded down, therefore dropping velocity.  This could put
    a 270 wm back into the balistics of the 270... good to keep in the
    back of your mind... another thing to think about is component
    costs.... to push the mags your using approx 10% more powder for
    an increase in velocity of possibly 3-5%
    
    The 270 can be loaded with 100,110,130,140,150 and I believe someone
    came out with a 160 loading.
    
    Fra
    

    To further complicate matters, I recently read an article on the
    280. I dont remember the stats exactly, yet it was very close to
    270 balistics characteristics. The major gain from what I recall,
    was the larger grain bullet. Does anyone have more knowledge on
    this cartridge? I guess it's really starting to gain popularity.

    I saw a nice winchester model 70xlt in this caliber at a local shop,
    brand new. Looked like a great gun to hun with! Relatively short
    and light, price was right too at around $300.00.

    
    
                What happen to the Record Bear this was about???
    
    
            Bill

    Fra,
    
    I agree with everything you say except about the 130 gr with
    regard to antelope.  I agree that I would not hunt whitetail
    with a 130 grain bullet.  But I shot two antelopes last year
    with 150 grain bullets moving around 3200 fps.  Boy, what nice
    straight shots.  But when I looked at the meat I told myself
    I had to launch a smaller projectile.  Lost all the tenderloin
    in one and clobbered the front roasts in the other.
    
    My partner was using a .270 (the BAR that jammed in the clutch)
    and when he hit his buck, he made a nice hole with no mess.  His
    shot was no better than the two of mine.
    
    I used both Sierra for one and Nosler Partion for the other.  Oddly
    enough, the Nosler was the one that really blew up.  (They cost
    twice as much, don't seem as accurate at high speed and make a mess)
    
    Okay, so this is not emough to base a decision about bullet weights
    on, but I'd like to try using a 130 grain bullet.  I think a 110
    might be a little light, but I'll bet Gordon will say it ain't.
    
    Note, it's all well and good to talk about shot placement until
    you shoot at a running animal, especially antelope.  I led my buck
    by 2 1/2 lengths and hit him in the chest.
    
    Re: back a couple,
    
    Thanks for the info on the 130's.  I looked in stores that had
    everythingbut Hornadays.  Ha, I'll look a little better.
    
    Brett.

    Brett,

	No, I won't disagree on the 110 grain in the .270.  I guess
	I've just got too much of that ole Missouri "show me" in me
	to change grains.  And some of the "if it ain't broke, don't
	fix it".  Although my wife has taken a couple of antelope
	using a 110 grain in 6mm.  It took them down just fine.   And
	your not just kidding about hitting the critter while its going
	50 mph.  I would rather miss than not make a clean kill and
	like you said several bodies length lead is necessary at full
	tilt.  I think I mentioned once how I practice that, target in a 
	tire rolling down a grade.  As far as meat damage goes, I've
	seen antelope shot with everything between 6mm and .300 mag, and
	they all rip up the little critter when it doesn't go stright
	through the lung area.

	What bear story?

	Gordon

    regarding the 110 grain in the 270, being as the bullet was designed
    for varminting I don't think I would opt for it.  Not saying it
    could'nt knock em down, but on anything less than ideal bullet
    placement your gonna run into problems.
    
    In the 6mm the 110 grain was designed for larger small game and
    smaller medium game (i.e. fox, coyote, deer, antelope), thus providing
    controlled expansion through most mediums. 
    
    just my 2 cents, had some change left in my pocket ;^)
    
    Fra

    Since we've long lost the topic of this dicussion I don't feel out
    of place with the following information printed without permission
    that appeared in the Lewiston Tribune.......
    
    SERVEY DOCUMENTS ELK LOSSES
    
      Crippling loss --- elk killed but not recovered -- has evolved
    as a major element in a 3-year-old study on elk hunting being conducted
    in the Lochsa-Selway river drainages by the Idaho Fish and Game
    Department.
      Going into this hunting season, 37 bulls and 9 cows in the study
    area were equipped with radio collars. Here are some of the researchers
    findings:
    
     0 Of 12 bulls killed by hunters last fall, five were recovered.
     0 One of five archery kills has been recovered in the past three
    years.
     0 Eight of 30 rifle kills have been recovered in the past three
    years.
    
      The study was primarily designed to determine wheather elk in
    roaded or unroaded areas fared better during hunting seasons. In
    the roaded portion of the study area, hunters have killed 56 percent
    of 48 collared elk; in the unroaded portion, only 12 percent of
    63 collared elk have been killed.
      These figures seem to indicate that unroaded habitat can absorb
    more hunters and maintain more large bulls than hunting areas developed
    with roads, says researcher Jim Unsworth, adding that they also
    indicate a need for improving archer's skills.
                                              - Lewiston Tribune
    
    I have another article that talks to crippling losses.  If any one
    wants to see it let me know and I'll enter it.  My personal feelings
    are that if this is the norm (and not an isolated case) I would
    become and ANTI-ELK HUNTER !!!!!!!!!!! and a highly vocal one at
    that!!!!!!!!!!  I'm sorry but my love of THE sport and the data
    listed above is causing a major conflict with my emotions.
    
    -Dave

    I think there is a greater problem than mentioned. It happens alot
    to deer even in N.H. I hear huntiers now and then who say they shot
    a deer and found blood but could not find the animal. I had shot
    a deer once and thought I would never find it. I kept up my persistance
    and found the animal the morning after I had shot it. I had just
    about stepped on it when I found it. Another time up at my dads
    camp there were these two out of state hunters that had claimed
    they had shot a deer. They had broken one leg and hit it a number
    of times. There was snow on the ground and blood all over the place.
    They said they had searched for hours and finally gave up. There
    was this guy in our hunting party. He took over where the out of
    state guys left off. In a matter of an hour he had located the dead
    deer. He tagged it. He told me he could not understand why they
    could not find. They must not have looked too hard. I don't think
    it is too hard to locate a wounded deer in the snow. Actually it
    isn't too hard to locate one when there is no snow. Especially the
    way that one was bleeding. How many of those elk that were not
    recovered were shot by non-residents? It does not make sense for
    true hunters too not find there game. I wonder how many hunters
    are just out there for the kill and not for the meat. It is a growing
    problem, at least that is what I think. 
    							Bret

    .32  I would like to read that article if you could print it.
    Thanks.
    							Bret

    RE:34
    
      I'll put it in when I get a little more time.  But just to comment
    on why its happening.   Washington state had the same problem and
    what they did was change their game laws that require the hunter
    to select the weapon and animal of his/her choice and thats it
    (period).  If you select to bowhunt elk then thats all you can do;
    no muzzleloading or rifle hunting anything (that includes other
    species, i.e., whitetail or muleys).  This will eliminate the problem
    of the "casual" bowhunter who is scouting for rifle season.  Washington
    has also restricted the use of handguns.... no handguns for elk
    and only .41 mag or larger (magnum) may be used on deer, bear, or
    cougar.  A little more on "why it's happening".... I can only speculate
    but perhaps some of the problem is caused by trophy hungry slobs,
    tin-horns that don't follow up on a shot, hunters taking long shots
    and not being able to locate where the animal was standing when
    they shot at it, etc.  Perhaps states that have elk hunting should
    incorporate a mandatory training program similar to the one NH did
    for moose hunters.  I don't know the answer but something has to
    be done about this problem.
    
    -Dave

    In N.H. there exists a similar problem. Residents have to take an
    acreditted hunter safety course, but non-residents only have to
    supply a previous hunting license from anywhere. I have been shot
    at twice by non-residents who were taking so-called sound shots.
    A law was just passed in North or South Carolina recently that does
    not allow sound shots or shooting at hunters thinking they are game.
    I am not sure what the fines and sentences were but I think I saw
    it in this months North American Hunter magazine or American Hunter
    magazine. I think even non-resident should take hunter safety courses
    to get a license in N.H. The two times I was shot at they said they
    heard a sound. I was in Blaze Orange. But I also think that a hunter
    safety course for everyone would also eliminate leaving wounded
    game in the woods. But there will always be someone giving hunters
    a bad name out there. I don't think a safety course will eliminate
    all the bad but it would eliminate some of it and give the rest
    of us a better chance to hunt without worry. 
    							Bret

RE:< Note 261.36 by SALEM::MACGREGOR "I'm the NRA" >
>    A law was just passed in North or South Carolina recently that does
>    not allow sound shots or shooting at hunters thinking they are game.

Sound shots???  You mean to tell me that some people shoot at something when 
all they had was a sound to go by?

Also, perhaps some of the cripples where shot by people who saw the collar, 
thought they did something wrong and took off.

Rich

    
    Brett, be very careful of what you say. And I would also get off
    your "Soapbox" about non-residents. With saying that everyone should
    take a Hunter Saftey course I totally agree, but not for every state
    your going to hunt. In the magazine you seem to always be quoting
    from "North American Hunter" they did an article on just what your
    talking about and they showed which states required these courses
    for different styles of hunting. Also it seems that your getting
    shot at a lot are you doing something right or wrong? Also about
    laws on shooting other hunters, I don't know of any state that has
    an open season on us yet, Please let me know if they open one so
    (1) I don't go there and (2) I suggest to some "FORMER" and other
    so called "Hunters" that they go and hunt it.
    
    
                                                       Guy

    "IT IS UNLAWFUL TO:
    
    . NEGLIGENTLY SHOOT & WOUND OR KILL A HUMAN BEING WHILE HUNTING;
    . ABANDON A WOUNDED OR KILLED HUMAN BEING;"
    
    Quoted from page 45 of the 1988-1989 New Hampshire Fish and Game
    Department Hunting and Trapping Guide.
    
    I agree that there aren't any open seasons on us yet (in the literal
    sense) but it makes me a little leary when I read laws like those
    listed above.  Just seeing those laws reinforces the need to wear
    hunter orange and use a flashlight when the lighting is poor.  Thats
    probably the intent of the laws as I don't think the average brain
    dead "sound shooter" knows how to read, let alone read the game
    laws.
     
    -Dave
    

    These laws might be in place so they have a proper way of prosecuting
    offenders. 

    Rich

    RE: .38
    
    I just want to point out that the "Bret" you meant to address in
    the "get off the soapbox" note is probably Bret MacGregor.  If you
    spell Brett with two "tt"s then you're probably referring to me.
    I'm not crazy about being flamed at for something I didn't write.
    
    Sorry to be a spineless lizard Bret.
    
    I think Mr. MacGregor should find a nickname to avoid the confusion.
    
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    For a long time I wondered why this Papallardo guy was using to
    nodes to enter notes.
    
    BreTT.

    Mr Helsel,
    
      Why don't you sign your notes "Brett--owner of fluffy dogs"
    That way it would eliminate any confusion!    
            
    Jeff--owner of real dogs

    Hey Jeff_who_wouldn't_know_a_real_dog_if_it_bit_him_in_the_ass,
    
    This note is about a dead, record bear and guns that would effectively
    be used to take the next record bear by a guy from out of state.
    
    So unless you have a Blue Tick Hound, or want to talk about record
    bears, but out!
    
    Brett_whose_lightning_fast_dogs_take_live_pheasant_on_the_ground_daily

    
    BreTT,
    
            One you spelt my name wrong, and two if you really noticed
    there are (2) of us Rick on "NEBVAX" and myself Guy on "SALEM".
    I'm sorry for making the spelling mistake, please do not take offense.
    
    
                                                      Guy

    re: -.1
    
    Oh yea, I figured out there were two of you after a while.
      
    I definitely didn't take offense!  I just wanted to point out the
    confusion.
    
    Brett_the_guy_with_the_fluffy_dogs

    .41 Maybe you should change your name from BreTT to Fluffy. My name
    is not changing, it shall stay the same but if you own fluffy dogs
    then you are probably fluffy too!

    .37 Yes this past fall I over heard some Non-resident (Mass.) hunters
    saying they heard a sound and took "sound Shots" but found nothing.
    They were bragging about this. A friend of mine and another guy
    really got on their cases about it but oyu could tell they didn't
    know their stuff. I chased the two guys that shot at me out of the
    woods and only caught one where I landed a few on his face. He told
    me he heard a sound. These two were also from Mass. Also a couple
    of years ago some Mass. hunters from Boston came up to Deerfield
    to hunt and they told the bus driver to go down this dirt road 
    (middle road) adn they went down this dirt road for about 3 miles
    when they came across this herd of sheep, which they started to
    unload on until the owner came out and stopped them. By the time
    the smoke cleared they had killed 7 and wounded a couple more. All
    these people did was obtain a Mass. license and then they came up
    to N.H. and then obtained a N.H. license. Obviously theu knew nothing
    either. When I hear about a dead hunter being found I never hear
    about the guy who did it, the one exception was this past fall when
    a hunter was shot in the groin and bled to death, but they suspect
    foul play with the other 5 guys. I just think it is sad that
    non-residents that know nothing about hunting can come into this
    state and get a hunting license and shoot at anything they hear
    or see moving without at first checking it out. i don' tthink that
    I am standing on a soapbox saying the world is coming to an end
    but rather voicing a concern of mine. The state probably won't do
    anything about a hunter safety course for non-residents because
    they might stand to lose some revenue. I don't think any other states
    are strict like that either. Every time a hunter or person gets
    shot during hunting season, all it does is give Anti's more fuel
    for their fire. One that may eventually get out of our control.
    				BRET  -the one with the right name

      Don't be tricked by what is a popular stunt to scare other hunters
    away from a hunting area.  To tell other hunters that you took a
    good sound shot to scare them away is a tactic as old as the hills.
      The hunter that you mentioned was killed in a crossfire situation.
    He was taking a stand at the edge of a field, the deer ran between
    him and another stander and the other stander shot him.  Apparently
    these hunters were brain poor.  They were also residents of New
    Hampshire!
      So we can all live in harmony (and keep the revenue generated
    by out of state licenses) I recommend that we give our state forests,
    parks, and towns with names like "Deerfield" to the non-resident
    hunters and find/hunt nice woodlots that we can keep to ourselves.
    semi- 8^)
    
    -Dave

    Bret,
    
    I wasn't going to bring this up, but "brett" spelled with
    one "t" is the spelling used for eunuchs.  Sorry to hear about your
    loss.
    
    Brett (at least I have dogs that can hunt)

    Bret (one 'T')
    
    Let's not let this thing get carried away here. I hunt Maine and
    live in Mass. The guys I hunt with are every bit as qualified and
    experienced as most Maine and NH hunters.
    
    Your generalization of out-of-state hunters is a bit off. Everyone
    should take a hunter safety course... I agree. But everyone takes
    a driver test before getting a license to drive. It's hard to say
    if a course would change anything. 
    
    got to go....
    
     Smitty
    

    Re: in state vx. out of state hunters.
    
    I lived in Maine for 6 yrs when I first got out of college.  It
    was common to hear the locals complain about the "out-of-staters"
    during hunting season.  A friend of mine was a warden and I asked
    him once just how bad "out-of-staters" were.  His reply was
    enlightening.  He said that the Warden Service had done a study on hunting
    accidents and lost hunters.  The conclusions were that based on
    the number of hours hunted, residents got lost more often and were
    involved in more accidents then non-residents!!!  Kind of blows
    apart the folklore of "out-of-staters".  His theory on the reason
    why was because locals have the attitude that "I know this area
    like the back of my hand, I couldn't possibly get lost."  
    
    Jeff
    

    	Smitty,
        I know there are alot of responsible hunters from everywhere.
    But it seems to me that when alot happens here in N.H. it comes
    from an out of stater. I come across poeple who shoot an animal
    that thinks it is a deer but rather something else such as a moose.
    To me everyone should take the course in hunter safety. too many
    accidents happen with people that don't have such a course. 
    	As far as two T's go fluffy that usually means the female sex
    and one T is for the male sex.
    							BRET

    .51 Could be true anywhere. I just don't hear it as such. but then
    most people were not required to take hunter safety in N.H. either
    if they held a previous license until after a certain date. When
    I got my license it was not mandatory at the time but rather I took
    it to be able to get my license at 16. If N.H. now makes all residents
    take the course it should also be the same for non-residents.
    							Bret

    Fluffy Brett- I still have mine. You must have lost yours and that
    is why you spell it with 2 T's. And I know 2 T's are for the female
    gender.

    say guys.... isn't this note getting a little bit off track and
    somewhat rediculous....
    
    FRA

    
    I would like to remind everyone that whether a hunter knows the rules
    and/or the right way to do something, does not mean he is going to do
    it that way.  I'm sure that for alot of these people, who take sound
    shots etc. many of them know that is not the correct way to do it and
    they are running the risk of shooting someone. They probably just 
    believe that the odds are they won't shoot a person. Basically they
    are idiots.  This can be shown by a note in here (I forget where but 
    I think Jeff put it in) about a hunting safety instructor being seen
    coming down a river in a motor boat, with the engine on, standing in
    the front of the boat and shooting at ducks. This guy knew the things 
    being done wrong both morally and legally, as well as boat safety
    rules he was breaking.
    
    So even though you may wish it was as easy as a safety course, it
    isn't. The only way to stop it is strict penelties that are enforced
    and more people to enforce them.
    
    As for the in state /out of state argument. I have been both and seen
    both and I see no difference.  It seems that publicity goes more to the
    out of staters though.
                                                         

    re: fra
    
    Sorry folks.  I didn't mean to lower myself.  I just wanted to
    dis-associate myself with the bit about out of state hunters.  
    
    Admittedly, I don't like hunters who are disrespectful of other
    people/hunters and their property no matter what state they live
    in.  
    
    I took two hunters safety courses, one as recently as two years
    ago, and I am still learning things that I did not know....things
    that will enhance both safety and sportsmaen like conduct in the
    field.  I would recommend it to anyone.
    
    As for manhood, those who try to prove it the most typically need
    to.  Get it?
    
    Brett.
          

    The only thing I have to prove is that I am not the spineless lizard
    you think I am. Otherwise I would let it die if I was. I have nothing
    to prove to anybody. Anybody who goes around calling people shit
    like that obviously has a serious problem and should have it taken
    care of. You may be the one who needs to prove something by the
    way you offend people. If you have aproblem with me say it to my
    face and not through a terminal where you act like a BIG man that
    you obviously think you are but rather not. As far as safety courses
    go they are of great importance and I would like to see the day
    where everyone must take one. But like someone mentioned before
    in this note there is not enough wardens to enforce them or the
    penalties are not there to make people wake up and smell the coffee.
    I have come across my share of jerks in the woods. It will probably
    never end. At one time I can remember hunting being called the safest
    sport. I don't know if ANTI's are bringing up more bad points against
    us but if we want to continue to hunt, the hunters have to do their
    part to help keep our sport going, otherwise we will lose it. 
    						Bret       not fluFFy

    re: .58
    
    Thank you for making my point for me.
    
    I apologize if I offended anyone.  Jeff and I have been going back
    and forth for a couple years now and we know we are kidding.  In
    fact I hear his dogs are *okay* at pheasant hunting, but I'll never
    admit it.
    
    I really don't have anything to prove either.  But I would like
    to learn more about hunting from the folks in this file.  So why
    don't we just drop it and get on with hunting.  It may be worhtwhile
    for you to look back a few notes and remind yourself who started
    slinging mud at who.
    
    Brett.  (Like the name just fine, it works great)

    Agreed. But I never intended to sling mud at anyone. I was just
    trying to get a point across about hunter safety. 
    							Bret

    Fra,
    Since I've become a recent .270 owner and shortly will be working
    up a load for this gun I heard something interesting that sort of
    applies to this bear story.  I've  been told by a couple
    of folks that the lighter 130 bullets are actually more devestating
    on game than the heavier .270 bullets.  The 130 is supposed to exhibit
    ideal penetration/expansion whereas the heavier bullets lack the
    penetration.  Have you (or anyone else out there) heard the same?
    Another thing I never realized until now was that the .270 is a
    true 7MM (7.03MM) while all 7MM owners are really shooting 7.21MM
    bullets.
    
    So if whats stated above is true then I retract some of my earlier
    remarks about using too light a load (assuming that the guy who
    shot the bear didn't own anything "heavier" than the .270)
            
    -Dave 

    I have in front of me some ballistic charts from Outdoor Life magazine.
    I think they printed them in Sept. 1986 issue. It says here that
    the .270 will retain it's 3 levels of energy (I'll have to look
    up the article again to find out what the 3 levels are) on a 130
    grain bullett (may be different for different bullett types) will
    go 170 yards for animals up to 600 lbs. The 150 grain bullett will
    only retain all three levels of energy to 115 yards for the same
    weight animals. For example the article says "the energy level of
    the 30/30 Winchester with a 170 grain bullet drops below 1,200 foot
    pounds inside 150 yards. Yet we know by experience that a 30/30
    easily kills deer at 200 yards and even a bit beyond." It all comes
    down to shot placement anyhow, I would say. The same holds true
    on a .300 Win. Mag. the 180 outperforms both the 150 and 220. Too
    many intangibles?
    							Bret

     
     I have a .270 that I have been shooting for several years. My father
    as Mountain Rifle in .280.  The bullet choice is FAR greater in the 
    7mm (.280) class then the .270. However,the avarge to above average
    will not see a difference in the ballistic energy between the 
    the rifles. This is my opinion and I firmly belive it! All the
    magazines and books are great but add to the fire of discussion.A good
    shot with proper bullet selection will do fine in most all game found
    on this continent.
    
     The 130 grain bullet in .270 is meant for deer size game.The 150
    is for larger game. Now this is based on the bullet design not
    personal experience. 
    
     I like my .270 a great deal but if I had a chance I would trade it in
    for a .280 just because of the vast amount of different bullets that
    are out there and to reduce my stock. I have a 7mm BR in a xp100 and
    I have lots of heads for it.  I also have some old varmit bullets in
    .270 that are 110 grains and some that I think are 90 grains....
    
    
    		wayn

    It's all personal preference. You could add 30/06 to those two you
    mentioned before. All very close in velocity. But if you want to
    get into specifics the .280 beats the other two, only minimal though.
    I happen to like the 30/06 over the other two because it comes in
    more flavors than the other two, from accelorators up to 220 grain.
    Should always hunt with something YOU like, than with something
    that you don't like.
    							Bret

          Even though this is far from being a State record in Maine I am
    pretty sure the record was set for the largest bear taken in Augusta
    this past Thursday. A gentleman that lives in Augusta by Togus pond
    heard a noise outside his house Thursday morning and after looking
    out the window discovered a large black bear throwing around his
    garbage cans. He shot the bear in his driveway and had it hanging
    in a tree this weekend. A lot of people were coming by to see the bruin
    as it dressed out at 280 lbs. 

    Coming back from Vt. Sunday on 89, there was a road-killed baby
    Bear ( 40-50 lbs. ) near Randolph.
    
    	Red