Mr VJP

The .338 Federal was designed with performance in mind. The idea was to create as much velocity and energy as possible from a .308 based cartridge, using a .338 bullet. The average ballistic table uses a 24” barrel when quoting figures. There is a very good reason for that. How much more velocity and energy will you get from a .338 Federal using a 24” barrel over a 20” barrel? About 15% more. Using heavier .338 bullets in a rifle that has the proper twist rate to handle them, and having higher BC’s and SD’s, these bullets bleed less energy and velocity at long range than 150 or 180 grain .30 caliber bullets do. That makes the .338 Federal a good long range, flat shooting, hard hitting, but mild recoiling, big game round. It was intended to be an Elk round from the start. Why sacrifice that extra hard hitting energy, by using a barrel too short to get all the round’s potential? Let’s also not forget the much louder muzzle blast that comes with short barrels. Shooters who reload often want to get the best possible ballistics from the round. Why compromise possible ballistics by using a short barrel? What hunters prefer to use a round for, is often totally different than what it was designed for. Yes, it does well as a hard hitting deer and black bear round, in a short barreled rifle, at relatively short range. But if that is your goal, many other rounds, like the .375 Winchester, .444 and .45-70, in lever rifles, would be hard hitting and offer faster follow up shots. The .338 Federal may not hit as hard as some of these, but will offer less recoil for the energy it provides. I don’t believe anyone offers the .338 Federal in a lever gun, but it is available in semi-autos. The whole fast handling claim of short brush guns, seems to be in conflict with today’s “one shot one kill” goal anyway, and a 20” lever gun really isn’t any shorter than a 22” short action bolt gun, nor is it lighter. Kimber currently make a very nice 84M Montana model with a 22” barrel in .338 Federal. If it was made with a 24” barrel, I would have one now. In a short action bolt gun, the OAL of a .338 Federal with a 24” barrel will be no longer than your average .30-06 with a 22” barrel. But it will offer more velocity and energy from the round than a short barrel will, as well as greater balance and stability for long shots. If a shooter is getting this round for his one and only hunting rifle, the advantages and versatility of a longer barrel will serve him much better than a short one. If it is to be a specialty gun for a man with a couple of hunting rifles, that is a whole different animal, with many more personal preferences altogether.

I don't own one, but I love the .338 Federal. It's a very good round for all North American big game short of a Grizzly. I would want the barrel on my rifle to be at least 22" though, preferably 24" if I could get it. With a short action, the OAL of the rifle would still be about the same as a standard 30-06, while squeezing out every available fps that round can give me. That means flatter shooting and harder hitting, which is what the .338 Federal is all about.

Born, I knew I had this saved somewhere, but it took awhile to find it. It's a good read. http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/hunting-and-marriage-6-safe-spouse-handling-tips/

Yes, some people have more money than brains. I'm 59 now and I'd never spend that kind of money on outerwear. I didn't buy the expensive stuff when I was 30 either. There are other options, for far less, that are just as good.

Culver, they do make ammo, but I don't think they have .22LR.

That's illegal in NJ too. No CCW permits are issued unless you are politically connected, bribe someone, and are a multi-millionaire! The state leaves everyone defenseless.

Not until you skin and cook it, it ain't! LOL!

You can always spray a little olive drab paint on them to camo them up a bit.

My Bear from 2010 One of my Kimbers October Evening Wear

Yeah, they are more upset because the bear was later killed, than they are with the guy getting killed. Liberalism and Animal Rights activism are both mental disorders.

Not sure where this was taken or when. I also love the Winchester 1894 rifle he's got here.

The location of the killing was a nature preserve in NJ that does NOT allow bear hunting. If not for the bear finally being hunted in most of NJ, bear kills would most likely have started by 2012 and probably be common by now.

Wow. These young guys probably had very little outdoor experience. Edison, NJ is a suburban area where most residents would never imagine even seeing a bear, no less having to deal with one. They really were out of their element. But it is very surprising to hear a bear actually killed someone in NJ. Most times they don't run from people, but they very seldom attack them.

Wow, you have exceptional talent! Congratulations. Is that setting a lake in NY State?

I've hunted since 1970 and taken more deer than I can remember. I don't keep count of them. But I do remember every deer I didn't take, especially the big ones, whether it was missed, too elusive, or spared for some personal reason. That number is about 1/4 of the deer I did bag. You learn very little from each deer you are successful taking. You learn a ton from the ones you were unsuccessful taking.

I don't believe any of Sandler's movies qualify as classics, or even intelligent. But as a clown, he is OK.

Hunter numbers are already on the decline. A lot of it is caused by lack of hunting land available to the general public and the high cost of getting started. When you consider how much a newbie has to invest to get started, between guns, ammo, clothes, boots, misc equipment, licenses, permits, gas for the car to travel upstate or to the hunting place, etc., etc., it is very expensive. It has to be an investment for the long term. But how does a new guy know if he's going to be in it for the long term if he never gets to try it out? Anything else added on top of that pile, isn't going to recruit more hunters, it's going to turn away more of them.

Trump is right about their water being flammable. Methane gas has been in those water supplies for decades. The wells tested and showing an issue after fracking began, were never tested prior to fracking. So it cannot be said there is a cause and effect relationship. If it were true, there wouldn't be any fracking going on anywhere. It's an unfounded accusation by people opposed to the energy source, just as they are opposed to the Keystone pipeline.

Saw one in 4P while spring turkey hunting this year. First one I ever saw.

What makes you think the water you get out of your faucet now isn't giving you cancer? If you have scientific data to support your claims, please feel free to post it. If not, you are simply doing what a lot of scared people do, and that is fear mongering. Like I said, the advantages and benefits are unquestionable, the negativity and fear mongering is.

Depends on which outfit you choose. The stuff made to be quiet is very good. I think they have some rain wear that's a little stiff though. Which outfit are you considering?

Just proves what you are free to do when you live in a state that still values freedom!

Probably because the demand for them hasn't increased yet, due to a state mandate requiring them. A big concern is the number of hunters predicted to drop out of the game. The economic effects of jobs lost because of that, as well as the license fees and sales taxes lost, that would have benefited hunting and wildlife, are all effects I don't think people understand. All of this would benefit the anti-hunting/anti-gun agenda in the country though.

10X brand clothing is great stuff. It's been around a longtime too. Walls bought the brand after it had many decades of success. It was originally made for hunting only. It is designed with hunting in mind. You will not be disappointed.

Fracking has many. many economic benefits, but it may bring environmental costs. I'm not sure it is as bad as the greenies want us to believe it is. Right now the Left is doing everything it can to increase the cost of all fossil fuel energy in it's zeal to force "green" alternatives on us, which are not nearly as cheap to use. So, naturally they will attack fracking to prevent it's success. I've been to the gas fields in PA. I've looked into the pollution claims. I see nothing as bad as it's being made out to be. No industry is totally pollution free, but weighing all of the advantages against the disadvantages, I can't see a total ban on fracking making sense. I can understand if you disagree, but everyone I debate this subject with seems to only care about themselves and their own beliefs. I don't think they ever see the total picture and how it effects the people employed, the economy, the state's prosperity and the country.