BUILDING A COALITION

Should hunters fear a conservation coalition that includes non hunters?

The sad and often perverse slaughter of wildlife that marked the European colonization of North America remains one of the great examples of how selfish purpose has the capacity to impoverish both nature and society. Fortunately, the great innovation we term conservation was itself an outcome of this unfettered onslaught and exemplifies how the spur of crisis can raise both a nation's conscious and its resolve to progress. Indeed, the fading thunder of the once innumerable bison still echoes in our consciousness. It persists as a shadowed reality that settles upon our debates surrounding the future of wildlife on this continent today.

The great transformation that marked the rise of conservationist thinking inNorth America was fashioned by individuals who cared deeply about the natural resources of Canada and the USA. Their  efforts, launched agai nst improbabJe odds, led to the system of laws, policies, conventions, and institutions we recognize today as the North American System (Model) ofWildlife Conservation.This is the only fully integrated continenraJ system of conservation in the world and its spectacular and sUStained recovery of wildlife is unsurpa sed. Irs success bears witness to the power of a citizenry whose motivations to protect wildlife and their cherished hunting and wilderness traditions would not be denied.

There can be no doubt that this system habeen convincingly led and significantly maintained by individuals and organizations in support of sustainable wildlife use, but it was from the beginning joined by a much wider coalition of interests that included legions of non hunters as well. The early commitments of women's organizations to halt theslaughter ofshorebirds and the legendary wilderness advocacy of John Muir can never be dismissed nor denied. Nor must we ever forget the tireless devotion of dedicated hunters’ l Ike Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell to the con ervation of songbirds and a wide range of other nongame species. In their love of all nature, these advocates were united, though certainly many differences of opinion existed and intense debates and disagreements over specific is sues were inevitable.

Over time, this original coalition has become fractured, leading, in my opinion, to a weakening of the conservation movement.It has become almost fashionable to align oneself with a narrower view of what matters in conservation, a narrower view of what is worth fighting for. Far too of  ten this decision has been considered and encouraged along the fault line of hunting, as though it is somehow inevitable that we must disagree over this founding tradition and that no inclusive coaJition for wildlife is possible because of hunting. This is ridiculous on so many fronts that it boggles the mind to even tale it seriously.

For it is incontrovertible that the vast majority of North American citizens support fair chase, legal  hunting, thus offering no social majority context for conservationists of any stripe to regard hunting as the celebrated and unavoidable cause of dissent. On  the contrary, this support for hunting shows that there is every reason to believe and accept a broad sociaJ agreement on the legitimacy of hunting, and to use this as a basis for coalition building, not as an excuse for inevitable dissent. Furthermore, the efforts of the hunter-naturalists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in providing both the philosophical and legislative foundations for the recovety of diverse wildlife is beyond challenge, and has a deep and vibrant literature in its support. And, beyond question, it was the hunter naturalist  ilk of Leopold and company in the 1930s who laid the scientific foundation for wildlife management and conservation policy.

If all this weren't enough, there is the irrefutable truth that hunter dollars directly and indirectly pay for the majority of staterun wildlife conservation programs and have consistently done so for over half a century. So why is this divide over hunting presented aa barrier to building a broader coalition? Is there real validity to this muchdiscussed chasm? Is it only one side of the divide that promotes this? Or do both sides promote the idea and encourage it as a barrier to cooperative engagen1ent on the larger conservation issues of ow•time?

I know from personal experience that some would point tO a (contrived) historical narrative, suggesting that  this divide was a deliberate construct decreed by the wilderness advocate John  Muir of Sierra Club fame and the sustainable use/hunting advocates like Boone and  Crockett Club (best represented by Theodore Roosevelt), and is thus a longstanding reality. The truth of the matter, however, is that history does not support this narrative. Muir and Roosevelt had differences of opinion, certainly, but they were also very much admirers and supporters of one another in many regards. (The real division that came between Muir and the sustainable use community is well documented. It was over domestic livestock grazing on federal lands, not hunring.)

So why do we find it so difficult to form a broader coalition on conservation? Is hunting really the barrier it is portrayed to be? Or is it just a distraction, designed to take the eyes and minds of people off the real issue? Is it possible that on both sides of the aisle we are afraid of a broad coalition? Is it just remotely possible that many players in the conservation arena find it both convenient and advantageous to force an artificial divide upon the broad mass of potential recruitS and membership by offering them a choice that will confer a sense of allegiance and fraternity? Are we afraid of a broad coalition because we fear our individual influence may then be diminished?

Well, who can really say? But just in case the hunting public and our hunting organizations are afraid of this, would offer the following personal observations.

We have nothing to fear.We arestrong and can become even stronger. The coalition will be formed; the movement in its direction is already underway. Hunters will lead, follow, or become irrelevant. So we need to take the lead, become the tip of the conservation spear and once again welcome all those who care for wildlife, helping them to understand hunting or to accept itS contribution, even while they remain less than totally comfortable with it.We must be the leaders, the conveners, the broad-minded, clle confident, the welcoming, the statesmen and women of conservation. We must

lead the next conservation revolution.To do less will be to choose the narrow view and the self-righteous and self-congratulatory path that has never been the way or motivation of the true hunter.

We began the conservation revolution over a centmy ago by being inclusive. Let us not abandon this great history nor diminish the hopeful pam we have forged. Let us recover our idealism, for the sake of wildlife, our nations, and ourselves.

SCOPING A VINTAGE RIFLE

Proceed with caution when  mounting  scopes on older rifles.

When it comes to vintage rifles, I have the same problem that faces many humers: Shooting iron sighted rifles is difficult and I rely on scope sights for my serious hunting rifles. I do own and shoot several iron-sighted rifles and have hunted with my lever ac­ tion Marlin .35-55 in recent years. I love the rifle, but I confine its use to brushy river bottoms and short-range pursuits. I wouldn't even consider drilling it for scope mounts.

If you've been accumulating, or seriously collecting, any particular type of vintage rifle, you've seen it: the pre-World War I Kurtz-length Mauser driJied for a Redfield scope base or an early Model 94 with four side-mount holes Swiss-cheesing the action.

I'll say it once, and then offer some alternatives: Please don't drill any holes in unmolested rifles. Thanks.

One of the reasons bolt-actions make popular hunting rifles is the ease of mOtmting scopes, but there was a time when the actions were not driJled, and the universal way to mount a scope was a European detachable clawmount. They were commonly mounted very high­ you could see the sights through sloes under the scope and seldom were the riflesrocks correct for the scope. If you would like to mount a scope on a vintage bolt-action rifle such as a Mauser, I would suggest finding one that has suitable claw­ moum bases or that has already been drilled. There are lots of them arou nd and there are also a few gunsmiths versed in adapting modern or quality vintage scopes to existing claw mounts who can help you out.

Bolt rifles that have been converted to hold scopes often have had their bolts altered (by bending or welding) for low scope clearance, including a deep groove carved in the stock, and sometimes the action has been grooved in the same place. Returning a rifle so altered to its original state presents a very compli­ cated and difficult restoration requ iring serious metal and wood repairs. This is both expensive a nd requires a very expe­ rienced gunsmith.

In the case of vintage single-shot rifles, only the last of the American and European vintage guns were set up for scope sights. The American rifles sometimes had the barrel drilled  for scope blocks and there are a few high-quality reproduction scopes on the market as well as original external-adjustment Peeker, Unertl, and Lyman scopes. Although somewhat delicate and cumbersome by modern standards, these can offer a con­ venient alternative, and I have friends that regularly, and enjoyably, shoot varmintS with this setup. I've shot gophers with my buddy's Low Wall. 22 and a 6x %-inch tube scope, and it's a hoot to put the dot on the spot and tip them over.

Many vintage British and European singleshots had some kind of detach­ able scope mount, and a savvy gunsmith might be able to refurbish it or make a second unit for a modern scope.

Respected names in European vintage scopes include Nickel (Supra Models, 26mm) Zeiss (imported by Stoege1), Pecar (steel and alloy, .875" and 26mm), Kahles (1", 26mm) and rhe highly regarded Hen­ sold (various rubes).Be certain of the ring-to­scope-rube compatibility prior to purchase.

The other solution is to find a vintage mount to fit the holes already in your rifle. If your vintage Springfield sporter has five holes drilled in the side, believe it or not, you might be in luck. Griffin & Howe side mounts used five holes, three tapped for screws with two more for ta­ per pins. The G&H mount had a base anached to the action, a bar holding the rings that slid on and clamped co the base with two levers, making the scope de­ tachable. These were often professionally installed and it may be possible to find an appropriate mount to fit existing holes. Gri ffin & Howe still offers the mount, and i nstallation, on the firm's Web site.

The M. L. Stith Company offered a unique type of scope mount beginning in the 1950s. The Streamline model was designed to be installed without any altera­ tions to the rifle.The front mount used the rear sight dovetail and the rear mount fit in a factory-dri lled hole for a receiver sight.

While made for a variety of rifles, one of the more successful current applications is the Savage 99 and other lever-action rifles. They do require a very particular type of scope. Stith also offered high-quality hunting riflescopes in rhar era including the Bear Cub line.

Vintage scopes can be lumped into two categories: internal or external ad­ justments. In other words, do the knobs on the scope adjust the cross hairs, or the dials on the scope mounrs? Scopes with­ our internal adjustments require mounts with external adjustments.

As mentioned, companies like Unerd and Lyman made external-adjust­ ment scopes of extremely high quality that are much revered to this day. Pro­ duction of the %"-diameter-tube scopes began prior ro World War I and continued until sometime in the 1980s. Quality was maintained at a very high level, bur the sophistication and size of the scopes varied over the course of production. To greatly simplify, the newer the Unertl scope, the larger the objective lens and the greater rhe possible magnification. Unertl also made hunting-type scopes with a couple of different tube diameters, with either i nternal or external adjustments.

Vi ntage riflescopes represent a vast special-interest field, and the best informarion I've found was from old editions of Shooter's Bible and Gun Digest and the modern book Old Rifle Scopes by Nick Stroebel. If you are considering a vi ntage scope purchase, be sure rhar rhe rube di­ ameter matches the rings or scope bases planned for mounting. American-made scopes commonly have %" or 1" rubes, but the well-respected, Cali fornia-made Noske Scopes had .875" (22mm) tubes.

Lyman Alaskan scopes with%" tubes are quite desirable (both original and Le­ upold repros), as are the 1"Unerd Falcon, Hawk, Condor series. The externally ad­ justed Bausch & Lomb 1" sporter scopes were very h igh quality.

There were quite a number of models and powers of Weaver scopes and while they have a reliable standard of quality they are not considered on par with Euro­ pean scopes of the era. They are, however, of known rube diameter.

Unlike current offerings, most vintage scopes can be disassembled, cleaned, and adjusted internally, bur I have no recommendations for where to get them serviced.

There is a thriving Internet market for vintage scopes, sights, and mounts, bur ir is best to do your homework and research the subject thoroughly prior to purchase. Otherwise, you might be in for a disap­ pointing and expensive lesson.

MONGOLIA: This mysterious land is home to the largest sheep and ibex in the world.

Mongolia: The very word sounds exotic, alluring, perhaps even a bit dangerous.

This is the Asian steppe, home land of Ghengis Khan and the Mongol "hordes" who swept across Asia in the thirteenth century, spreading terror and conquering the largest contiguous land empire in history. The great Mongol Empire once stretched 2,000 miles from the cold edge of Siberia in the north to the humid South China Sea. From the Sea of Japan it ran non stop 7,000 miles east to Austria.

But as quickly as it arose, the Mongol Empire shrank back to its core south of Rus­ ia and north of China. And here it remains, high, landlocked grass lands rimmed by the massive Altai Mountains on the west and southwest. Smaller ranges ribble down from the north, offering alpine tundra, coniferous forests, and elevated relief amid seemingly endless grassy plains. Far to the south, Mount Everest and its Himalayan ramparts block moismre from the Indian Ocean and in this desiccating rain shadow lies the world's northernmost desert, the vast Gobi.

Today, Mongolia, 800 miles north to south, 2,000 miles east to west, is still vast, forbidding, and largely unknown. It's still peopled by nomadic horsemen, generic descendants of Khan, many of whom still hunt on horseback with gold­ en eagles riding on their arms.

Native Mongolians are said to be the finest mountain guides in the world. This is good, because the world's finest mountain trophy lives in Mongolia the massive-horned Altai argali. Ir shares some of its range with equally impressive Altai ibex. But there’s more. Th is ancient land harbors the slightly smaller Gobi argali, too. And red deer (Asian elk), moose, roe deer, ibex, white-tailed and black-tailed gazelles, saiga antelope, Asian wild asses, wild boars, and even brown bears. Chinese musk deer live in the southern mountains, and rare Bactrian camels plod over the Gobi sands. Game birds include western and black billed capabilities  Mongolian snow cocks, black grouse, hazel grouse, rock ptarmigan, and willow ptarmigan. In the grasslands and steppes Iive pheasants, Dauria n partridges (Mongolian bearded partridges), and chukars. Ducks and geese thrive in the western lakes district. Predators include Gobi lynx, Pallas cars, snow leopards, red foxes, and the sandy colored corsac foxes. And wolves. Many, many wolves, which prey upon the vast flocks of domestic livestock, which are doing their best to eat wild game out of house and     home. Overgrazing has been blamed for severe desertification and significant declines in populations of both big and small game, including ring-necked pheasants, the very species exported to start U.S. populations some 120 years ago.

This is the unfortunate news our of Mongolia. Unregulated market hunting and increasing domestic grazing are depleting formerly abundant wildlife. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, which controlled Mongolia as a satellite state for seventy years, a depressed economy coupled with China's insatiable demand for a wide variety of wildlife products has inspired a wave of poaching. Say what you will about the Soviets, but they managed hunting and wildlife harvest at reasonable levels. Shortly after Soviet influence and economic subsidies ended in 1990, saiga antelope numbers plummeted from over 5,000 to under

800. Red stags declined from 130,000 to 8,000. Argalis dropped from an estimated 50,000 in 1975 to 15,000 by 2001. Today's best estimate puts them at 17,900, with eastern popu­ lations increasing but western  herds still depressed. Even marmots, taken for their pelts, declined 75 percent in twelve years. These numbers are con­ tested, but clearly Mongolian wildlife has suffered.

On the bright side, the country and its wildlife could benefit quickly and significantly from scientific management and controlled harvest. With nonresident hunters willing to pay $50,000 to hunt a single old argali ram, Mongolians could realize far more profit by protecting and increasing sheep populations than by poaching ewes and young rams for meat.

Money from sport hunting could fund ant i poaching enforcement as well as habitat enha ncement.  Unfortunately, such funds are rumored to have found their way into private and government programs other than wildlife management, and little or none filters down to locals. Since there is li ttle enforcement of wildlife laws, chronically underemployed locals aggressively harvest wild meat, horns, and furs for a seemingly insatiable Chinese market.

International wildlife and conservation groups are working to change this. Safari Club International, Grand Slam/Ovis, the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Mongolian Hunters Association, and the Mongolian Ministry for Nature Environment and Tourism have launched a sheep population monitoring program. It's a start.  With solid base numbers, wildlife managers can at least begin accurately monitoring populations. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service can document sustainable management plans and offer import permits. Convincing Mongolian politicians to set up and enforce controlled hunting management is the ultimate challenge. Locals must understand that they will benefit economically from the influx of visiting hunters’ paying premiums to shoot a token percent age of native game. Mongolian wildlife could again thrive while paying its way. Excessive, unsustainable market hunting will merely cont in uedepleting the "wildlife bank" until the goose is no longer around to lay the golden eggs. But, as is the case in Africa, lo­ cal people must realize economic gain from wildlife. If this doesn't come from regulated hunting, they'll take it via u n regulated poaching.

That's Mongolia's challenge and potential. Right now, several outfitters provide good hunts in Mongolia. Argali permits fluctuate year to year with as many as fifty allocated recently, but the bulk of them have been for the smaller Gobi argali. Perm i ts are usually available for black-tai led and white-tailed gazelles, Altai and Gobi ibex, wolves, roe deer, and wild boars. Most outfitters can arrange for hunting upland birds and waterfowl. Many visiting hunters also fish for taimen, a huge native salmon.

The best action for hunters is to maintain interest in Mongolian hunting, support conservation organizations working there, urge scientific wildlife management and sustainable harvest of not only wildlife but native grasslands and forests, and maintain a close relationship with a trusted outfitter.

Mongolia has been  a wildlife and  hunting stronghold for  thousands of years. It remains one of the best locations for an Asian hunt and promises more than just unique trophies. It promises discovery, insight, adventure, and Cite for the future of Asian wildlife.

IT'S IN THE NUMBERS

A mathematical look at why some shotguns handle better than others.

How a shotgun handles is a subject of infinite debate. There are those who like a very fast gun, and those who favor a shotgun with  more weight  forward. It's all subjective, but some thought is often necessary to separate out the gun that whips around at imaginary birds in a gun shop and one that performs really well with live birds in the field.

The late Gough Thomas was the dean of British shotgun writers in the middle decades of the twentieth century. In a compilation of the best of his writings, one chapter is tided "The Importance of Balance." There he says, "The active manipulation of a gun involves considerable expenditure of energy, and it can be shown that less perhaps far less-energy is required to manipulate a well-balanced gun than is involved in putting a badly balanced one through the same motions."

Thomas continues, "Good balance requires that the weight of the gun shall be concentrated as much as possible between the hands . . . it will in consequence feel responsive, eager, and cooperative in action . . . but if the gun has its weight more dispersed fore and aft, it will feel leaden and sluggish."

What does this all mean? Let's take a fine British-made double that has the weight between the hands and give it, as Thomas d id, a "figure of inertia" of 100, representing the energy required to swing on a bi rd. When compared with another, less well balanced, shot­gun with a figure of inertia at 150, it is clear that our less than excellent shotgun will require half again as much effort to shoot the exact same target.

Thomas was an engineer by trade, and reduced the subjective "feel" of a shotgun to mathematics that provides direct comparisons of guns. As chance would have it, I met Don Amos, who is also an engineer and fine shotgun aficionado, at the Las Vegas Fine Arms Show last January. He was testing shotguns with an interesting-looking little machine t hat spun them around. (Thomas used a cradle that swung like a pendulum.)

When queried, Amos responded that his device was testing for moment of inertia (MOl). If you look up moment of inertia  you will get several pages of engineering discourse, but in a few words, it means the amount of energy required to start an object moving in one direction. For the shotgun nee it does not mean the effort to bring the gun to the shoulder although a good gun mount incorporates both the lifting of the gun and the swing of the gun but the effort to swing the gun laterally on a target.

If our theoretical shotgun's moment of inertia is low, it will take less effort by the shooter to swing the gun, and hence less drain on the body, making it less tiring and making our shooter a better shot at day's end. When I expressed keen interest in Amos's proj­ect, he agreed to make me a similar machine so I could test various shotguns for my own interest.

The machine is calibrated so that when a gun is put on its rotating top, the amount of time it takes for the gun co complete a full circle is measured on an attached stopwatch.That, along with the measurements of the gun barrel length, length of pull, weight, and most important, the center of gravity or bal­ ance point are fed into Amos's Excel program (results can also be calculated mathematically) and  it  provides  the measure of the moment of inertia.

The resulting figure is not a measure of foot-pounds or any other directly relatable measure, but rather a comparative number that can then be used to define the handling characteristics of a given shotgun when compared to an­ other. For example, Amos directed me to a $20,000 used Purdey and a $3,000 Spanish-made gun. Both  had similar MOis, and I found they were very similar in the way they felt and handled, price difference notwithstanding.

For example, the MOI of my wife's Beretta Silver Hawk  is 1.36; my 6pound AyA No. 2 28-gauge is close-by at 1.16, and so too were a Benelli Super Black Eagle II at 1.92 and Beretta's new A400 at 1.96. Moving to heavier target guns, an 8-plus-pound Perazzi MX8 has a MOl of 2.27 and a 30inch barreled Beretta DT 10 has a MOl of 2.32.

Another facet of Amos's calculation has to do with what he calls the Half Weight Radius (HWR), which defines how the weight is distributed across the balance point of the gun. Recall Thomas's solemn admonition regarding the weight being farther from the balance causing the gun to become sluggish. The  HWR of the Silver Hawk is 9.97, meaning that the majority of the weight falls about five inches on each side of the balance point, which  is 5% inches ahead  of the trigger. The AyA's balance point or center of gravity (CG) is 3% inches in front of the trigger with a HWR of 9.73. The Perazzi and DT 10 ended up at 11.34 and 11.38 respectively, with the DT lO's CG  nearly an inch far­ ther forward. That difference makes the  Perazzi  feel  more  barrel-heavy while the DT 10 feels more balanced between the hands, yet both are dose in MOl and weight distribution.

What does this prove? Some could say not much, because both beauty and gun  handling are mostly in the eyes and hands of the beholder. However, it demonstrates why guns feel the way they do, and gives us a better under­ standing of the intricacies involved in the formerly nebulous mystery of how a gun handles.

MEMORY-LANE WINCHESTERS

Winchester has introduced a series of lever-action rifles that bring back the best of a bygone era.

For those of us who grew up in the Northwest eons ago, the lever rifle was probably even more common in most households than bolt-ac- non rifles are today, it was not unusual co see one standing in the corner by the kitchen door, or hanging on a nail in the harn, Most were Winchester Model 94s chambered for *30-30 or .25-35; some were Model 92s chambered for .25^20 or .32-20. They were used on varmints that invaded the hen house or on one of the domestic critters destined to become table fare for the winter.
My first legitimate hunting rifle was a Model 95 chambered for ,30-40 Krag. It was a Christinas present given to me at age twelve by my dad* He had won it in a poker game and thought it would suit me better than his Mil carbine, which he had let me use during the last deer season. I bad made the mistake of pushing the wrong button on the carbine as a fat doe was looking at me from fifty yards away, and instead of the riile gO' irig bang, the clip fell out on the ground.
He said a hammer was a lot easier to figure out than a couple of buttons. That helped me understand the reason for the popularity of the lever rifle.
With time comes change, and manufacturers are always looking for better, bigger, and more accurate rifles to offer their customers. To say they have accomplished this would be an understatement. The hunting rifles offered today are much more advanced than they were thirty years ago. They are reliable, weatherproof, and shoot more accurately than 95 percent of the hunters using them.
However, there is something appealing about a gun w ith blued steel, walnut stock, and a lever hanging underneath that is hard to explain. Not to mention, a good lever rifle is still one of the best deep woods deer rifles available.
Winchester has produced limited quantities of lever rifles over the past few years) but this year they have opened the floodgates with five new models to go with the four they already had on the market.
The first of the newr models is the Model 94 Takedown, which has a 20- inch barrel and is chambered not only for the popular .30-30 but also for the potent .450 Marlin. The .450 Marlin version also has a Pachmayr Decelera- tor recoil pad and a ported barrel to reduce recoil and muzzle jump for fast fol low-up shots-
The Takedown model is in conjunction with the half-round hali-oc- tagon 24-inch-barreled Sporter Model 94 and the 20-inch-barreled Model 94 short rifle. Both are chambered for .30-30 and .38-55,
To complement the existing 20- inch-barreled Model 92 carbine, Win-chester has added the same rifle with a larger loop lever for those with big hands or bulky gloves.
Both models are chambered for .357 Magnum* .44 Remington Magnum, *44-40, and .45 Colt.
The next addition is a Model 1886 Extra Light Weight with a 22-inch barrel, straight grip stock, and shorter magazine, which tips the scale at 7Va pounds, The Model 1886 short rifle has a 24-inch barrel and full-length magazine and weighs about 8*5 pounds* Both are chambered for the *45-70.
Rounding our the introductions of these new/old lever rifles is the very popular Model 71, which comes in two grades.
First is the Model 71 Deluxe, which has Grade TV walnut full pis to I-grip stock and nicely done cut checkering and a high gloss on all metal parts. The sights arc open buck horn style with a hooded front sight—just like the Deluxe Model of the past.
The standard Model 71 comes with select walnut full pistol grip, not checkered, and a satin finish on all metal parts. Sights, as on the Deluxe Model, are the buck horn type with hooded front sight. Both models are chambered, as was the original Model 71, for the .348 Winchester.
Not having time to shoot each model, I had to pick one to rake to the range. My choice was rhc Model 86 Extra Light Weight chambered for .45-70. My reasons were twofold. One, the .45- 70 is a favorite, very underrated hunting cartridge that’s been around since before Custer made his stand at the Little Rig Horn. In modern strong rifles such as the Ruger No. 1, Model 86, and Winchester Hi-Wall, it is a real thumper.
Second reason is because I have an original Model 71 that I re-barreled to ♦45-70 years ago and 1 wanted to compare the new to the old, as the Model 86 is basically the same action as the Model 71. (Besides, it was a good reason to get the old Model 71 off the rack and let it see daylight again,) The only real difference between the two rifles, besides straight grip vs. pistol grip, is that my old, 45-70 has a Williams peep sight and the Extra Light has a buckhorn sight.
Old eyes and open sights are not a very good combination so the targets for my range testing were set at 75 yards. Ammunition used was from
Barnes, Remington, Federal, Winchester, Double lap, and Nosier. Bullet weights ranged from 300 grain to 405 grain. Also, a couple ol select handloads were shot,
During testing, the difference in bullet weights made a significant difference in point of impact. This is not a big deal, as a hunter will sight in his rifle with the ammunition he intends to use on his hunt, but it should be noted.
Accuracy of the Extra Light Weight Model 86 was very good. Most groups were in the two-inch range, with one group that measured less than IVi inches* That particular group could have even been better but the third shot was called out. The first twro shots w?ere 3/4- inch using Barnes Ammunition with the 300-grain TSX-FN bullet.
Winchester has done a great job with these historic big guns. Other than the fact that my old rifle has a battle- scarred stock and worn bluing, it s hard to tell the new from the old. The only major difference, actually, is all the new Winchester lever rifles have the addition of a tang safety.
I wish I’d had the time to shoot all five new models; shooting the Model 86 wras fun and sure brought back a lot of memories. When word of these “new, old additions to the Winchester lever- action line gets out, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of them in the woods next hunting season.