opinions on bolt rifle for brush gun.

[Wyosmith]

The handiest gun I ever hunted with in super heavy thick brush were revolvers. I Did well too.

But to be honest, of all the rifles I have used for hunting in the thick-stuff, only one was what most shooters think of as a "brush gun". I have hunted in thick brush with a 44" long barreled flintlock, and also several modern rifles with barrel of between 22" - 26" long. I never found them to be a big problem. I don't deny that my 19" barreled 30-06 is handier then my 27" 300 H&H, or 25" barreled 375H&H but not that much handier. Enough to notice true..., but not enough to make me wish I didn't have the 300 or 375.

Maybe I am the odd man out here, but I think short barrels are somewhat over rated in rifles. They will help a little, but only a little.
If a rifles is too long I start thinking handgun, not shorter rifle.

But that's just me.

 

[ThomasT]

wyosmith that was my earleir point. If the woods are so wooly you have to have a short rifle to get through them the odds of being able to injun up on a deer is very small.

I like the short 7-08 I mentioned because first its light to carry and second when slung on the shoulder it doesn't stick up past your head and get caught on branches and limbs when you duck down.

I started to mention handguns but the OP asked about rifles. I also just like my old open sighted model 94 winchester in 30-30. Not because I think it will shoot through brush but because its so handy to carry.

 

[Gunplummer]

Both good points. When I hunt a shotgun only area, I have a single shot dedicated to that. That gun is really short because of the receiver. I have moved through some thick laurel in a steady rain and had deer stand up less than 10 feet in front of me, but you really have to be quick.

 

[bamaranger]

short

I think short is NOT overrated......unless one's circumstances can benifit from the added heft, balance and velocity offered by longer tubes. Mine do not. My score on rifle killed whitetails in is not huge but respectable. I can count on one hand the number I have taken that were over 100 yds, and only two were past 200. All others were shot at less, usually MUCH less. Most were shot with light, short rifles, chambered in calibers far under '06 power. Elsewhere, or others, may need the balance and speed, I don't.

I realize this is the rifle forum, but let me digress w/ some shotgun comments. I am an obsessed spring gobbler hunter. I bought a 30" full choke gun when able because the guru's of the day touted velocity and sighting plane. One season as a healthy young man conviced me that lugging that pipe through the woods and over hill and dale to catch up with a rambling tom was too much. I spent way to much cash to get the shorter turkey barrel of the day, a 3inch mag, 26" factory full choke barrel. Within a few years, screw in chokes became the norm, and I obtained a 20" rifle sighted slug barrel and plunked a turkey choke on the muzzle, and have hunted that rig for over 20 years. I couldn't imagine going back to the 26" or heaven forbid, the 30 incher! Even bamaboy's 24" gun, which I borrow from time to time, seems clumsy and awkward through the brush. Spring gobbler and big game have much in common, a single good shot, from a stable, sometimes improvised position. Shooting from blinds is simpler due to the short factor too. And the whole rig is notably lighter. I have no designs on sneaking up on a gobbler, nor do I foresee killing many whitetails on the stalk these days.....but from point to point, shorter and lighter is way better.

As others have said, brush rifle cartridges do not bust brush.....but shorter and lighter gets through the brush easier, no doubt in my mind.

 

[Don Fischer]

For me, JMR40 has it right. Lazer flat trajectory! In the video, I can't imagine anyone trying to shoot through brush like that, that's how people get hurt! My old 660 Rem in 308 made a great gun for hunting in the brush. Had a 2 3/4x Redfield widefield on it. When I zero rifle's I do it for MPBR. Been years since I'd hunted anything like brush but back then I zero'd right on at 100yds. To do the same today I'd do MPBR at a 3" target. You'd have to adjust for the line of sight maybe through brush but if you can see well enough that the shot is possible, you can slip a bullet through the brush. Today the rifle I might try would be my mod 788 in 308 with 18" barrel. Have a 1-4x Redfield on it. But this year I'm hunting in brushier than normal for me and I'm gonna take my mod 70 ftr wgt in 6.5x55 w 2-7x Redfield. Bullet's no matter how big, heavy or small can be counted on the shoot through brush!

 

[Gunplummer]

All you naysayers of "Brush gun bullets" need to go back to post #5 and watch that video. I really don't care for that guy because he is hung up on Russian bolt guns, but he really nailed that test. I really have to wonder if some of the people on this forum ever went hunting other than in the recliner with an OUTDOOR LIFE magazine.

 

[dgludwig]

I really have to wonder if some of the people on this forum ever went hunting other than in the recliner with an OUTDOOR LIFE magazine.

I'm more of a Field & Stream guy.

 

[mete]

I laugh at the comments .Yes I've had a 44 mag deflect and a45-70 also so I know .Find a hole through the brush.
But ... in another forum a hunter in Africa a hunter shot an animal. They recovered the bullet but it looked strange . So he went back to the scene and found the brush he shot through included a mopane tree !! A very hard , tough wood but the bullet penetrated through to hit and kill the animal !!

 

[Gunplummer]

I think most people know a good excuse when they see it. Neither one is 100% of the time, but neither is hitting a branch. Why lower your percentage in a thick area with a high speed spitzer bullet? Watch that video. There is no argument. There it is.

 

[john in jax]

Looked at the Mossberg MVP Scout, Patrol or Flex in .308?

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Since I do quite a bit of Brush bustin. I have a few Brush guns.

Ruger American in 300 black Out. this one will get a can as soon as the law changes.

AR15 Carbine in 300 black out. 30-30 marlin, Marlin model 1941 in 32 win special.

AR15 in 7.62x39

AR10 in 308win

Mosin Nagant 91-30 turned into a brush gun.

Pretty sure I have more around here some were. I guess I dont like limits.

 

[bamaranger]

argument

I've seen the video, previously, and again for this post. Sure you can argue it.

In the first place, 3 shots is not much of a sample pool. Shoot 3 more and you might get entirely different results. Shoot 30, I'm interested, 300 and I'm beginning to believe.

Next, the numbers the fella did use were not that convincing. He got a hit with .22lr, he got a hit with .308, does that mean they are equal brush cartridges? Of course not. So why is two hits with a .444 all that more of a "result"? Did he get 3 hits with anything?

And why did he shoot the light calibers first, and the heavies later? Isn't it entirely possible that he thinned some brush near the target face when shooting the smaller cartridges, that allowed the heavies to do (one hit) better?

Also, that was a forgiving target, I'd think taller than any average whitetail from spine to belly. ...I'd argue that some of his hits would have been under a deer, or wounding at worst. Few of the hits were actually centered, if that was indeed his aiming point. I'd wager if he put up a 12x12" " plate, more representative of a kill zone, and still a bit big, he'd have missed with near everything.

One thing you can't argue is that a shorter, lighter rifle is easier to carry and easier to manage in close quarters like a blind, tree stand, or shooting house.

One consideration for a "brush rifle" is fast repeat shots. For a bolt rifle and fast repeat shots, consider an oversize bolt handle. Savage sells an oversize handle that will bolt on many of their models. Gunsmithing will allow big knobs on other rifles too. There is also a rubber gadget that will go over the knob of most standard bolts.

 

[Gunplummer]

There is no argument. For years all we heard was that any little twig would deflect a bullet. You think that .22 cleared off that branch?

 

[Don Fischer]

I do three shot group's to find a load. Could do them all the time, wouldn't matter. The most import and best shot you'll get is the first one! Three shots into 1/2" and 5 into 1". Still very good hunting load!

 

[44 AMP]

My first deer rifle was a Remington Model 600 in .308 Win. Hunted in the Adirondacks. If there's a better bolt gun for the woods, I never found it. I've collected 600 series rifles in .222Rem, .243 Win, 6mm Rem, .308Win, and .350 Rem Mag. Not tack drivers after they warm up, and they warm up fast, but so what? They were never meant to be.

A word of caution, they are light, and in the bigger calibers, you get just a BIT of recoil.

 

[Sea Buck]

Ruger M77 RSI. 2-7X Leupold scope on 2x mostly, and 30.06 180 gr BT. Light, handy, quick and plenty of punch. Always know your target and never shoot through brush.

 

[ThomasT]

Its sorta funny so many mentioned a brush gun has to be short and light weight. Me included. But the original woods hunters way back in the 1700s on through the 1800s used flintlock muzzle loaders that were close to 5 feet long and weighed 8 pounds or more. Sometimes a lot more. And they hunted in some pretty wooly woods. And they killed piles of deer, elk and buffalo (yes there were buffalo in the eastern woods) and kept themselves well fed with meat and paid taxes with deer skins.

 

[dgludwig]

But the original woods hunters way back in the 1700s on through the 1800s used flintlock muzzle loaders that were close to 5 feet long and weighed 8 pounds or more. Sometimes a lot more.

It might help to explain they didn't have any other options. I'm sure if they did, a Marlin Model 336 or Savage Model 99 or their ilk would have been the "brush" gun of choice.

 

[ThomasT]

Maybe so. But they made do with what they had. Two hundred years from now hunters may laugh at what we consider cutting edge right now. Its all about perspective I suppose. And I don't think it needs explaining. I bet everyone here knows already.

A lot of people, me included like to hunt with old style guns just to add a little more challenge to the hunt. At one time I considered hunting with a spear. I have had several deer walk right in front of me in my ground blind. I thought with a spear I could dash out and stick 'em in the ribs. But I waited too long. I don't dash anywhere anymore.

 

[fourbore]

I've seen the video, previously, and again for this post. Sure you can argue it.

In the first place, 3 shots is not much of a sample pool. Shoot 3 more and you might get entirely different results. Shoot 30, I'm interested, 300 and I'm beginning to believe.

Next, the numbers the fella did use were not that convincing. He got a hit with .22lr, he got a hit with .308, does that mean they are equal brush cartridges? Of course not. So why is two hits with a .444 all that more of a "result"? Did he get 3 hits with anything?

And why did he shoot the light calibers first, and the heavies later? Isn't it entirely possible that he thinned some brush near the target face when shooting the smaller cartridges, that allowed the heavies to do (one hit) better?

He showed where bullets actually struck branches and then hit the target. he also explained the near missed vs missed by a two feet & tumbled results. It is the difference between having made up one mind in advance or watching and listening. How can you be critical of the test and not even recall the details?

The 577 Snyder HIT ALL THREE times with significant damage to bushes. The 45/70 hit twice but made a small group of all three shots at the lower left corner of the plate. Basically 3 hits, no tumbles. Most of his hits averaged a bit low and left and appears to be his off hand 50 yard aiming error or target acquisition error. Although the 577 group was a little better centered. The 577 was a clear winner, and with plenty of damaged limbs.

If I am not mistaken both the 22 and 223 individual that hit had tumbed and hit sideways. The 223 and 308 had a lot of tumbling, all 6 shots.

This is an interesting discussion. It is too bad the OP derailed himself by calling the 450 a brush rifle and set off a crap storm, all-be-it an interesting crap storm. I was hoping to hear some experience with the American in 450. Its an interesting gun that reminds me of the Siamese Mausers that were sold in the past. I missed the boat to Siam. These Rugers are low cost enough to be a fun purchase and more practical with a scope. I dont really care for the 450, but what the heck.

The Ruger web sight says the brakes can be removed and replaced with a cap. Both provided. That allows the option for pleasant practice and testing and protecting your hearing when in the field with a thread protector.

If/when suppressors become deregulated, I hope to see mini products that take the edge off without having the bulk of full blown devices. That is the whole reason for the new law, hearing protections.

Gun Blast did a review, as usual no bench rest shooting.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-AmericanRR450BM.htm