Benbrown

I lived in Manhattan for several years in the late 1970s, and still go back from time to time to hunt with friends who still live there. When I lived there, both the upland bird hunting and waterfowl hunting were world-class. I kept both pointing dogs and retrieving dogs in those days. These days, one has to travel for a bit farther afield to find good upland hunting, but the waterfowl hunting is still great within minutes of town. White-tailed deer were just making a good comeback when I lived there, but there was some really good hunting in pockets. These days, whitetails are pretty much everywhere in the eastern half of the state and some real buster bucks are taken each year. There are also some really good deer populations in the southwestern part of the state, as well. Within the last ten years I have hunted the Republican River country in north central Kansas, the area north of Manhattan to the Nebraska line and the southern Flint Hills. All have good populations of whitetails and I have seen some pretty darned impressive bucks harvested. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of public land. With the growth of deer populations and the increase in hunters, you will probably have to pay a trespass fee, but these are rarely exorbitant. In short, I think that you will find it easy to locate good hunting without having to travel overnight or to pay and arm and leg. There is also good fishing close to town: bass in farm ponds and reservoirs, stripers and walleyes in Tuttle Creek and Milford reservoirs, and catfish in the rivers. Many of the creeks (which would be rivers in Arizona) have good fishing for a variety of species. I have no first hand knowledge of hunting in Washington, but I have spent some time in Seattle. Given a choice with equal job satisfaction, you'd see me headed back to Kansas.

I prefer AccuBonds if they shoot well, but Nosler has beefed up the Ballistic Tips in the heavier weights for each caliber. You don't really give up much except a little bit of retained weight by choosing Ballistic Tips over AccuBonds or Partitions. Of the few of each that I have recovered, retained weights vary about as much between the same type of bullets from different animals as between different typoes of bullets from different animals.

I just lay a good steel ruler with the end at the midpoint of the barrel and read the measurement at the midpoint of the scope tube. Unless you use a scope with an objective diameter greater than 40mm, the resulting measurement will be so close to 1.5 inches that any variation is irrelevant. Ballistic programs give you a good idea of where your impact might be at various ranges, but the only way to tell for sure is to shoot your rifle at 50 or 100 yard increments out to whatever distance that you are comfortable shooting. I have about three different programs on my computer and another that is programmed into my chronograph. Despite the relatively primitive program in my 15-year old PACT chrono, it produces drop tables that more closely approximate what I find when I actually shoot a given load/bullet combination. I don't shoot a lot of "flat shooting" cartridges (with the exception of my .300 Wby), but the PACT program works well with cartridges ranging from .243 Win up to 9.3x74R and .375 H&H.

My 10x42 SLCs got run over by a Jeep up Colorado last year. They worked well for about 15 minutes, at which point one barrel quit focusing. I sent them back to SONA and they charged me $150 to replace a prism. This is the third time that they have been back to Swaroski in the 18 years that I have owned them and the first time that I have been charged for any repairs or service. Go to their web site for instructions, and then call or email and get a service authorization number. Once you have the authorizatin number, send the bino to the address they give you. You will get an email back with a diagnosis and a repair estimate. In my experience (and the experience of some of my hunting buddies), the "estimate" is what it actually ends up costing you.

Well deserved! Congratulations, Tony!

In a controlled round feed (CRF) rifle, the cartridge is captured by the bolt as it comes up out of the magazine and "controlled" until it is seated in the chamber. In a push feed, cartridges are pushed out from under the feed lips of the magazine and lay in the rails on top of the next round or magazine follower (if there are no more rounds in the magazine) until the bolt pushes the cartridge forward into the chamber. In a push feed, the cartridge laying in the rails could conceivably be jarred out of alignment or even out of the rifle by sudden movement, or by a sudden movement of the bolt. This means that one would have to draw the bolt back and pick up another cartridge from the magazine and chamber it before the rifle could be fired again. It is mostly a concern in dangerous game rifles where the operator may be nervous, under duress and more likely to do something to cause the cartridge that just came out of the magazine to be dumped. Most military Mauser actions (and many commercial Mausers) will not chamber a round unless it is pushed up from the magazine and the rim is caught under the extractor. If you just drop a round in the action and push the bolt forward, the cartridge will be seated in the chamber, but the bolt won't close and the rifle won't fire until the cartridge in the chamber is removed. In rifles like the pre-64 Winchesters and the post-64 Classics, the extractor will slide over the rim of a cartridge that is dropped in the action. Most military Mauser actions that are sporterized have the extractors modified so that they will chamber a round that is just dropped in the action. There are also rifles without the Mauser-type long extractor that are CRF, as well. Hope this helps.

Freeport is hiring. My step-daughter just got on as a surveyor at the old smelter site that is being rehabbed up near Silver City. She had no relevant experience, but they trained her. I keep hearing the Morenci is hiring, too. Get on the F-M website and browse the jobs. Good luck!

Ruger has been making pretty good barrels for almost twenty years, now. Early on, they bought McGowan and a couple of other makes and did have problems. Is his rifle not shooting up to his expectations? If not, how old is it? If he just wants a different length, contour or rate of twist, just about any of the aftermarket barrel makers will sell you one to fit or install it for you. Krieger, Shilen, etc.--check out their web sites or ask your gunsmith what he prefers. If your brother's rifle is a Mk. II or a Hawkeye, the barrel would be about the last thing I would mess with. Here is an excerpt from an article by Rick Jamison: Some years back rumors were started and repeated, as rumors are, that Ruger barrels were poor. The rumor was that they were second-party barrels and bought so cheaply that they couldn't possibly be any good. Like with all production rifles, I've had some Rugers that shot very well and some of them that shot poorly. I do know that Ruger began hammer forging its own barrels a few years back, and recently I’ve had the opportunity to view the interiors of a good many of them with a bore scope. I can say from personal experience that the interior finish on the current hammer-forged Ruger barrels compares favorably with any other factory barrels. Again, no one seems to have a total handle on accuracy when it comes to rifle barrels. Some barrels simply shoot very well and some do not. I do not think that you can tell from examining a barrel’s dimensions, finish, or even straightness whether it will shoot well. I will say that when everything is right, a Ruger Model 77 Mark II rifle will group as well as practically anyone can shoot it. Besides a healthy respect for the machinery of a Model 77 Mark II rifle resulting from my exhaustive experimentation with the mechanics of the firearm, I like the rifle. I like the way it handles, functions, and performs. Let me put it this way: During the last three years I’ve shot the highest scoring (Boone & Crockett) Rocky Mountain elk of my life, the largest pronghorn antelope, the largest mule deer, and the largest blacktail deer, and all of them were taken with Ruger Model 77 Mark II rifles.

Black Hills loads a 55-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip and Federal loads a 70-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip. Either of these would offer a bit less recoil than a 100-grain load. However, the muzzle blast might be considerable, so be sure that he is wearing a good set of muff-type ear protectors. Remington and Federal offer 75-grain loads and just about everyone has 80-grain loads. The Vanguards are not particularly light rifles, so any of these should be manageable as practice loads. Let him dry fire a lot before he touches off the first live rounds.

The bean counters are in charge, not the Customer Service folks. Welcome to the 21st century!

I have had as much as 2-3 inches difference in point of impact at 100 yds just shooting the same brand of ammo with the same bullet weight and a different lot number. You are definitely rolling the dice if you don't check your rifle's zero before going hunting.

Back in the late Pleistocene when I was still a young deer biologist, we conducted several radiotracking studies of whitetails in Texas, monitoring their movements and activities for a 24 hour cycle each week for several years. As other studies have demonstrated, deer tend to be "crepuscular", meaning that they are most active at dawn and dusk. However, there are two more distinct activity periods each night, one from about 4 hours after sundown and another around 3 hours before sunrise. We discovered that deer treat darkness (i.e., a dark night or a dark moon) as cover and will they will venture farther away from their daytime bedding, loafing and escape areas to feed and socialize. This means that it takes them longer to return to their daytime bedding and loafing cover as daylight returns. This is why hunters think that deer are more active on dark nights. Deer are more likely to be still out moving after daylight. On bright moonlit nights, deer spend just as much time feeding, resting, watering and socializing as they do on dark nights--they just do it in areas where they are not as exposed. As daylight approaches, they are much closer to their bedding and loafing areas and are usually secure in those areas by the time that most hunters would have "shooting light". One of the other constants that we noticed was that deer tended to be active and usually go to water between 10:30 AM and about 1:00 PM, as they were moving from their morning bedding and loafing areas to their afternoon areas. I have found that Coues whitetails pretty much behave in the same manner and, like swoods205, I have located more than half of the Coues bucks that I have taken as they were moving in the middle of the day.

That's the most direct route, but you will have to drive the Geronimo Trail east out of Douglas over the Peloncillos, as Blair Well is just inside the eastern boundary of the NF. It takes about the same amount of time to go from Douglas up Hwy 80 to NM 9 then east to Animas and back down old Hwy 338 (now Co. Rd. 1). Although it's farther, the wear and tear on your vehicle will be considerably less. Hope this helps.

I have one in matte black finish on a rifle that I haven't shot for a while, and I could use yours on a rifle that's coming. PM me and we'll trade trade. Ben

The easiest way to find out is to weigh a few of each brand of cases empty, then fill them with water to the top of the neck and reweigh them. If you weigh in grains, you can easily calculate the percent difference in case volume between the two brands. If the difference is more than one or two percent, you will probably see a difference, if all of the other components (including the powder charge) are the same. Or, you can go ahead and load a few rounds in each brand and try them on a target from the bench. I have seen significant differences between W-W cases and Federal cases in some cartridges but not in others. Curiously, the differences have been most noticeable in cases the size of .30-06 (reformed to .338-06) and larger. Shooting them is the only way to be sure.

Looks like he is in Marana.

My favorite is a .257 AI built on a Mexican Mauser action with a Krieger barrel and a Rimrock stock. It's accurate, it's light and it's completely reliable. With 110 grain AccuBonds, it is deadly as far as I need to shoot.

So much for the "nation-wide search". Apparently the word is getting around.

Look here: http://www.azgfd.gov/eservices/special_licenses/guide.shtml

Pics, prices??? Thanks!

Here's a little more info from today's AP story. These wolves will have the full protection of ESA (i.e., a $50K fine for illegal take) unless they wander into the Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Area where they are considered to be members of an experimental nonessential population. Arizona has a similar law and fine structure. ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- A plan by Mexican wildlife officials to reintroduce a rare species of gray wolf to its historic range in northern Mexico has prompted questions from wildlife managers and ranchers in the Southwest, where a similar, decade-long effort has been fraught with controversy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and officials with the Arizona Department of Game and Fish recently learned of the plan by the Mexican government to release five captive-bred Mexican gray wolves at an undisclosed ranch in northeastern Sonora. Mexican officials on Tuesday were still working on finding a suitable date for the release, said Laura Aguilar, a spokeswoman for the Mexican agency that oversees natural resources and the environment. The plan was first proposed in 2009 but has faced delays. Now, with the release imminent, Arizona wildlife managers are scrambling to determine what effects it could have on the effort in Arizona and New Mexico to reintroduce the endangered wolf. "Obviously, there are some implications for our reintroduction program here if those wolves come across. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing or a good thing, but we just need to have some answers to our questions," said Lynda Lambert, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Wildlife managers and ranchers in the two states want to know whether the wolves will be protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Or will they have the same "nonessential, experimental" designation as wolves released as part of the reintroduction effort in New Mexico and Arizona? There are also questions about how the wolves will be detected and monitored if they cross the international border, and how nuisance and livestock depredation incidents in the U.S. will be investigated if they involve the wolves from Mexico. "When this came up two years ago, we raised some questions that really were never answered and so now I guess we start over again," said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. "There's a lot of concern because there's a lot of stuff we just don't know." Cowan added that ranchers she has talked to in Sonora are concerned after having seen the challenges spurred by the U.S. reintroduction effort. Environmentalists said a release in Mexico would help ensure the species' recovery in both countries. The effort to return the wolves to the wild in New Mexico and Arizona has been hampered by illegal shootings, court battles, complaints from ranchers who have lost livestock and pets to the wolves, and concerns by environmentalists over the way the reintroduction program has been managed. The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s after a campaign by the federal government to control the predator. A handful of wolves were captured in Mexico in the late 1970s to save the animal from extinction. In 1998, the U.S. government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million-acre territory. Biologists had hoped to have at least 100 wolves by now, but the latest survey shows about half that number. It's unclear how many wolves are in Mexico's Sonora state, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Mexico has 18 captive-breeding facilities and 66 wolves. Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity called the prospect of wolves in the Mexican wild "extraordinarily good news." He said it's critical that the Sierra Madre range in Mexico be identified as part of the wolf recovery area. "It's hard to conceive of recovery actually taking place without a population of wolves sustaining itself in Mexico and being connected to those in the United States," he said. Both Robinson and Tom Buckley, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said connectivity between the two populations would help broaden the wolf's genetic pool. "As they expand, we want to see them mix, we want to see them naturally have that genetic exchange," Buckley said. "That's one of the hopes in order for them to become a self-sustaining larger population." Officials said the wolves that will be released in Mexico will be fitted with radio collars so they can be monitored. If they cross the border, the Fish and Wildlife Service said they will have the full protection of the federal Endangered Species Act as long as they are outside the boundaries of the wolf recovery area that spans southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. If the wolves are found within the recovery area, they will be considered as part of the experimental population - a classification that gives wildlife officials greater flexibility in managing the animals. Despite the concerns of ranchers in Mexico and the American Southwest, Buckley said Mexico is a sovereign nation with its own conservation laws and programs. "It's Mexico's choice," he said. "They can make their own call." Mexico has spelled out its priorities for protecting the wolf in a 52-page action plan that covers everything from identifying suitable reintroduction sites to involving the public in the effort. The wolf is one of 30 at-risk species for which the country hopes to implement conservation plans for by 2012.

So, why haven't they charged anyone with starting the Horseshoe II and Monument fires? Apparently illegals who start fires just get a free ride back to Mexico for another try or another load, or they are not "important enough" to identify and prosecute.

I am more than sympathetic to landowners. I have a small place myself and am retired from managing a large, wildlife-rich ranch here in New Mexico. However, when you look at the makeup of the commission, it's not primarily a sportsman's group. There are seven seats on the commission. They are supposed to be apportioned thusly: five seats representing sportsmen in five regions (NE, SE, SW, NW and Central, i.e. Albquerque), one seat representing "conservation" organizations and one seat representing agricultural interests (i.e., landowners). So here is how Martinez' commission stacks up: Th Northeast Representative is Scott Bidegain, a rancher from the Tucumcari area who is a participant in the A-Plus program that distributes transferable authorizations to landowners. He in no way represents sportsmen in northeastern New Mexico. The Northwest Representative is Robert Espinoza, Sr., of Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation which represents more guides and outfitters than sportsmen. Every time Espinoza has testified before the Commission on matters affecting landowners he has echoed the testimony of New Mexico Cattle Growers. I have never heard him support any sportsmen-endorsed positions before the Commission. The Central Representative is Tom Arvas, an opthamologist from Albuquerque who has served on the Commission under several governors and who now rarely takes a leadership position on anything. The Ag representative is Thomas (Dicky) Salopek, a farmer from Las Cruces who is also an avid hunter. He talks the sportsman's language, but is very conscientious about voting the interests of the agricultural community (landowners) whom he was appointed to represent. The "Conservation Representative" is Jim McClintic, a big donor to former governor Richardson's campaign and a $9,000 donor to Martinez' campaign, who has no known ties to any organized conservation group, either as a member or a representative. He is the Chairman and in New Mexico the Chairman is responsible for making the governor's wishes on any issue known and seeing that enough other Commissioners toe the line to ensure that the governor's wishes become policy. The Southwest Representative is Robert V. (Rob) Hoffman, a true sportsman and one who will listen to individual sportsmen as well as the clubs in the southwest. The Southeastern Representative is William (Bill) Montoya, a retired NM DGF Director who was with the department for many years and probably understands as well as anyone the relationship between the Commission, the Department and the sportsmen. He hasn't been on the Commission long enough to know how he will come down on the thorny issues. So, on a seven-person Commission there are only three individuals that we can count upon to even consider the interests of the average sportsman on issues that come before the commission. Commissioner Salopek is likely to labor during his term as the "swing vote" on landowner vs. sportsmen issues, but he is well aware that if he casts too many votes against the governor's wishes, he, too, will be summarily removed. Welcome to New Mexico politics!

There's no confusion but lots of missteps from Martinez and her administration. She has quickly proven that she is no friend to New Mexico sportsmen and women, and that special interests (guides and outfitters, ranchers and development types) have her ear. I voted for her and regret it every time an issue that is important to those of us who hunt and fish comes before the governor and/or the commission. Marrachini was apparently canned because one of her big donors got crosswise with him when Jerry was director and the guy was on the commission. He still has it in for Jerry and apparently is tight enough with Martinez that she abruptly removed Jerry (whom she had appointed) from the commission with no explanation. We're in for a long three and one-half years, at the minimum.

I agree with TJ. Normal for a mature buck would be 30-35 lbs. I weighed one that dressed out at 134 (by far the biggest bodied Coues buck that I have seen). That one might have yielded over 40 lbs.