opinions on bolt rifle for brush gun.
- Thread starter std7mag
- Start date
Blindstitch
New member
Buy it. I hate getting tangled up with a long gun in the brush. I tend to chose my rifle to the area i'm going. Options are great.
MosinNOUGAT
New member
Watched it, too. Explains this very well, so you should get something explained here.
I doubt it's what you are looking for, but a Martini-Henry carbine is a whole lot of fun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkGrr8N3X1c
^
One in action
Blindstitch
New member
Not all people believe in Eric's opinion as a brush gun. It's an example but you shouldn't be taking shots that aren't clear.
That myth was busted 50 years ago. Not a bit of truth. Actually traditional lever guns and their cartridges make poor brush guns. The best way to shoot through brush is with a highly accurate rifle with laser flat trajectory and good optics to shoot through holes or openings in brush. The optics are a must for shooting in poor light. Great accuracy and flat trajectory to shoot the openings.
My brush gun in 308. It weighs less with the scope on it than a Marlin 30-30 with no scope on it. About the same overall length and it'll shoot 1" groups at 200 yards. Trajectory is no more than 1/2" above or below line of sight from 50-130 yards in order to thread bullets through openings in brush. The flash hider prevents the huge fireball at the end of the barrel when fired before sunup or after sundown. It costs a lot less than a lever rifle too.
The Predator in 450 would work, but why handicap yourself with a short range round. A 308, 243, 6.5 Creedmoor, or 7-08 would work just as well up close and a lot better at distance.
Still think lever rifles are light and handy, this Marlin 30-30 scoped is the heaviest rifle in my safe.
My 300 WSM, my 2nd heaviest rifle just for comparison,
I don't recall if it was Gun Digest or American Rifleman,but in the 60's/70's,articles were written about serious,controlled testing of "brush busting " cartridges.
The testing revealed that the popular,long held belief about roundnose "brush busting" woods cartridges was myth.Not true. I assume,from the handle "Std 7Mag",there is some 7mm mag experience. IMO(I can't prove it) I would think a 160 gr Nosler spitzer out of a tight twisted barrel from a 7 mm Rem mag MIGHT perform better in brush than a .450 S+W or a .444 or EVEN (gasp) a 45-70.
But it would still deflect if it hit a 3/8 dia branch.
IMO,the previous advice about being able to see a clear path to your target via optics and a precise rifle is good advice.
One more thing. "Shooting trough brush"..... I'm not accusing or disrespecting anyone...but lets think a minute.
A bullet flies "line of sight" Shooting "through brush" certainly might suggest we are shooting at something that is at least partially obscured from vision.
Sometimes when we"almost see" something,the mind and eyes have ways of filling in the blanks...so the image we see is the one we expect to see.I think the phenomenon is called "early blur"
I don't even want to need a "brush bucking" cartridge. I want nothing but clear air between me and my target. Filling my tag is not a matter of life and death. Being sure of my target IS.
There might be "hunter orange" requirements...for hunters. Non hunters can still be in the woods wearing brown Carharts.
Something to consider.
The testing revealed that the popular,long held belief about roundnose "brush busting" woods cartridges was myth.Not true. I assume,from the handle "Std 7Mag",there is some 7mm mag experience. IMO(I can't prove it) I would think a 160 gr Nosler spitzer out of a tight twisted barrel from a 7 mm Rem mag MIGHT perform better in brush than a .450 S+W or a .444 or EVEN (gasp) a 45-70.
But it would still deflect if it hit a 3/8 dia branch.
IMO,the previous advice about being able to see a clear path to your target via optics and a precise rifle is good advice.
One more thing. "Shooting trough brush"..... I'm not accusing or disrespecting anyone...but lets think a minute.
A bullet flies "line of sight" Shooting "through brush" certainly might suggest we are shooting at something that is at least partially obscured from vision.
Sometimes when we"almost see" something,the mind and eyes have ways of filling in the blanks...so the image we see is the one we expect to see.I think the phenomenon is called "early blur"
I don't even want to need a "brush bucking" cartridge. I want nothing but clear air between me and my target. Filling my tag is not a matter of life and death. Being sure of my target IS.
There might be "hunter orange" requirements...for hunters. Non hunters can still be in the woods wearing brown Carharts.
Something to consider.
Last edited:
Gunplummer
New member
Yes, there are brush guns. The only myth about brush guns is the peg board test. I and some of my hunting buddies have found pieces of wood IN the deer we shot. I thought I missed a deer that trotted past me one day, until I found a ragged hole through a 6" green maple tree. It went through, it did not glance off. I don't advocate shooting through brush, but when the deer is moving you may just hit something it passes. The best brush gun I have ever seen is a lead rifled slug. This is eyewitness fact and not some laboratory nonsense that was set up to prove somebody's opinion.
Any rifle can be a "Brush Gun". Just don't shoot through brush and you'll be okay. Shotgun slugs are worst!
Buckshot is about the best, under 40 yards, but still it's best to NOT shoot through brush!!! The only thing worse than missing is maiming a beautiful creature and try to track it for miles! Been there...not pretty...and not my shot.
Buckshot is about the best, under 40 yards, but still it's best to NOT shoot through brush!!! The only thing worse than missing is maiming a beautiful creature and try to track it for miles! Been there...not pretty...and not my shot.
Jack O'Conner
New member
My older Remington 660 carbine has a 20 inch barrel which makes it handy for any type of hunting. .308 is a keeper!
Jack
Jack
Kevin Rohrer
New member
A Scout rifle is a good choice if you want a bolt-action.
the possum
New member
I've had two sabot deer slugs deflected off course by small branches that I didn't see. A scope would have helped me see them. On another occasion I saw a doe through the brush, and assumed I didn't have a clear shot. I shouldered the gun anyway for a look through my scope, and then was surprised to find an opening through the brush perfectly over the kill zone.
So I agree with other posters, that scopes can actually help quite a bit in the brush.
I have a CZ 527 in 7.62x39 as well, and it's a good lightweight candidate. Also have a Rossi in .454 Casull, which delivers .45-70 (factory) ballistics in a 5 1/2 pound package. Some of the Kimber mountain rifles weigh less than 5 pounds and come in big game calibers.
That said, get a gun you enjoy, and learn to shoot it under any circumstances, and keep within its limitations. Happy hunting.
So I agree with other posters, that scopes can actually help quite a bit in the brush.
I have a CZ 527 in 7.62x39 as well, and it's a good lightweight candidate. Also have a Rossi in .454 Casull, which delivers .45-70 (factory) ballistics in a 5 1/2 pound package. Some of the Kimber mountain rifles weigh less than 5 pounds and come in big game calibers.
That said, get a gun you enjoy, and learn to shoot it under any circumstances, and keep within its limitations. Happy hunting.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Manufactures now produce light weight Mountain rifles Varmint rifles Tactical rifles Guide rifles and Standard sporting rifles. I don't think a Bushmaster rifle really meets the category of this discussion.
I personally have not read of any rifle lately being engraved on its barrel specifically made for use in the Brush aka Brush Buster rifle. Although anything rifle engraved/ labeled Carbine or Sporting carbine could be considered a Bush rifle. All of the above listed rifles not engraved carbine are individual preferred Brush Buster posers I suppose.
Just saying.
OP if you get the opportunity to purchase a decent non-abused Savage 99 carbine {not the typical rifle model as there is a difference between em and engraved so} buy it. For toting thru the brush or bush there are few rifles ever made that equaled a 300 Savage carbine in such tough applications.
I personally have not read of any rifle lately being engraved on its barrel specifically made for use in the Brush aka Brush Buster rifle. Although anything rifle engraved/ labeled Carbine or Sporting carbine could be considered a Bush rifle. All of the above listed rifles not engraved carbine are individual preferred Brush Buster posers I suppose.
Just saying.
OP if you get the opportunity to purchase a decent non-abused Savage 99 carbine {not the typical rifle model as there is a difference between em and engraved so} buy it. For toting thru the brush or bush there are few rifles ever made that equaled a 300 Savage carbine in such tough applications.
Last edited:
Gunplummer
New member
A cut down 99 Savage in .358 Winchester.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Gary Sciuchetti wrote an article on bullet deflection when I was on staff at American Rifleman back in the early 1990s.
He bogged up an interesting testing rig... basically a frame into which he could insert a number of hard or softwood dowels and which could be positioned at any point from the muzzle to the target.
I can't remember much about his testing protocols, but I seem to recall that he tested both dry dowels and well soaked dowels.
Unfortunately I don't recall what his findings were specifically, but I seem to recall that one conclusion was that nose profile had little to do with deflection amount, and that how squarely the bullet struck the dowel had far more to do with the deflection.
He bogged up an interesting testing rig... basically a frame into which he could insert a number of hard or softwood dowels and which could be positioned at any point from the muzzle to the target.
I can't remember much about his testing protocols, but I seem to recall that he tested both dry dowels and well soaked dowels.
Unfortunately I don't recall what his findings were specifically, but I seem to recall that one conclusion was that nose profile had little to do with deflection amount, and that how squarely the bullet struck the dowel had far more to do with the deflection.