Post by: bobcat on August 23, 2013, 02:41:30 PM
The story is a little hard to believe though- claims it was shot at 350 yards with a 22 rifle. :o
Post by: Band on August 23, 2013, 03:00:24 PM
The story is a little hard to believe though- claims it was shot at 350 yards with a 22 rifle. :oOh yeah totally believable! :chuckle:
Post by: rtspring on August 23, 2013, 03:02:44 PM
Post by: buckfvr on August 23, 2013, 03:10:25 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 23, 2013, 03:12:01 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 23, 2013, 03:13:53 PM
So is Wapatox supposed to be Wapato, and Mt. Clements supposed to be Clemen Mountain ??????Wapato Valley is hardly near Cleman Mountain..........looks like an urban legend to me........
I'm not sure- was wondering the same thing myself. Never heard of "Wapatox" valley. :dunno:
Post by: Austrian Hunter on August 23, 2013, 03:17:42 PM
Post by: coachcw on August 23, 2013, 03:36:01 PM
Post by: pat2bear on August 23, 2013, 08:25:49 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 23, 2013, 09:24:37 PM
Post by: pat2bear on August 23, 2013, 09:31:48 PM
It was at Thompsons if I remember right.Thanks. I was wondering. I knew it wasn't in any of the bars.
Post by: pat2bear on August 23, 2013, 09:49:47 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on August 23, 2013, 10:11:13 PM
Wish there were antelope to hunt here now.
Post by: Curly on August 24, 2013, 04:56:43 AM
Probably a .22 Hi Power or possibly a .22-250 in an 1899. Either caliber would be sufficient for an antelope at 350 yards in a day when a .45-70 was a half mile gun and Elmer Keith was shooting .45 LC at 1000 yards.
Wish there were antelope to hunt here now.
I think you're right about the .22 Hi Power. I think it was a Savage Model 1899 since Winchester didn't make a model 1899.
Post by: boneaddict on August 24, 2013, 06:49:14 AM
Post by: MIKEXRAY on August 24, 2013, 06:52:57 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 24, 2013, 07:19:32 AM
Post by: pat2bear on August 24, 2013, 09:49:41 AM
Wapatox is the canal that runs in front of Clemens I believe. Probably the valley on the South side of Clemens between the mountain and the river, about where the feeding station is for the sheep.Ahh, ok. Never heard it called that before as we always referred to that area as just "the Y".
Post by: Bigshooter on August 24, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
Everyone is discussing the caliber but at the bottom it states open sights, that is one hell of a shot with open sights in any caliber. That pronghorn would look pretty small with the gun up and V on him.
I find it very believable. My great grandpa had a 99 in 22 high power than he always called his 300 yard bear gun. It had open sights and I saw many different black and white pics with that gun and dead bears.
Post by: Alan K on August 24, 2013, 10:13:36 AM
Post by: deerhuntr4885 on August 27, 2013, 09:37:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 27, 2013, 09:41:59 PM
Post by: Hangfire on September 07, 2013, 05:01:00 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 07, 2013, 06:39:07 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 07, 2013, 07:03:46 AM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on September 07, 2013, 07:27:14 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 07, 2013, 07:32:02 PM
Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.I agree ...all this high tech stuff we have now days makes it easier for almost anyone to become a decent shooter !! Got to appreciate the old timers and their iron sights :tup: :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on September 07, 2013, 08:13:02 PM
That's a little out there if it was a .22 rim fire :dunno: maybe a .22 hornet ..
It was a .22 High Power.
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 07, 2013, 08:30:19 PM
Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
:yeah: Marine Corps trains and qualifies with open sights and you have to able to qualify out to 500yards. So how is it hard to believe.......
Post by: grundy53 on September 07, 2013, 08:34:20 PM
Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
:yeah: Marine Corps trains and qualifies with open sights and you have to able to qualify out to 500yards. So how is it hard to believe.......
:yeah: and they use a .22 caliber bullet.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: snowpack on September 07, 2013, 08:38:16 PM
Also can't think of optical errors involved in using iron sights. Most scope users would be experiencing enough parallax error (unless they adjusted for it) from the scope and the changed weld due to elevation needed for that distance that they would have more error than the guy using iron sights.Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
:yeah: Marine Corps trains and qualifies with open sights and you have to able to qualify out to 500yards. So how is it hard to believe.......
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 07, 2013, 08:43:04 PM
Post by: TangoU on September 07, 2013, 08:58:14 PM
Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
Hitting targets with iron sights at 500 yrds in a prone position as standard qual when I was in the Marine Corps. Teaching my kids with iron sights on the .22 to begin with. Start with the basics. ;)
Post by: j_h_nimrod on September 07, 2013, 09:27:59 PM
Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
:yeah: Marine Corps trains and qualifies with open sights and you have to able to qualify out to 500yards. So how is it hard to believe.......
Not hard at all, just stating a point regarding the previously stated unbelievability of the shot. It is a little different if you are a trained Marine shooting at a body silhouette at 500yds vs. your average hunter/shooter today. I am pretty certain I could qualify expert as my father did; I learned on iron sights too. Hunting qualification is a bit different than the military though, your 500yd target is ~18"x36", not the 6-8" circle I consider the kill zone on an animal. If I can't keep it in 4" at 200yds open sighted I would be surprised.
I guess I didn't really make what I was thinking earlier clear. I certainly think a shot of that distance can be made. I just dont think it was in this case. This whole story sounds like an urban legend to me. :twocents:
Not sure how this figures as an urban legend. Antelope were known to be in that area around that time and a 350yd shot with a high speed .22 is not unbelievable...
Post by: RadSav on September 07, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
That's a little out there if it was a .22 rim fire :dunno: maybe a .22 hornet ..
It was a .22 High Power.
I agree. Don't think the 1899 was ever offered in any other .22 caliber but the Hi Power. I'd love to get my hands on one of those! Probably 4K or better these days. One of the few I do not have and have never even laid eyes on one.
Post by: jdb on September 12, 2013, 09:37:19 PM
they were known by who to be in that area?Just because our skills as riflemen have digressed to the point where most shooters today cannot use iron sights does not mean that 350yds was unbelievable in those days. I know my skills with iron sights are better than most and 200yds is not a stretch. I believe that for experts of the day 350yds would be very believable.
:yeah: Marine Corps trains and qualifies with open sights and you have to able to qualify out to 500yards. So how is it hard to believe.......
Not hard at all, just stating a point regarding the previously stated unbelievability of the shot. It is a little different if you are a trained Marine shooting at a body silhouette at 500yds vs. your average hunter/shooter today. I am pretty certain I could qualify expert as my father did; I learned on iron sights too. Hunting qualification is a bit different than the military though, your 500yd target is ~18"x36", not the 6-8" circle I consider the kill zone on an animal. If I can't keep it in 4" at 200yds open sighted I would be surprised.I guess I didn't really make what I was thinking earlier clear. I certainly think a shot of that distance can be made. I just dont think it was in this case. This whole story sounds like an urban legend to me. :twocents:
Not sure how this figures as an urban legend. Antelope were known to be in that area around that time and a 350yd shot with a high speed .22 is not unbelievable...
Post by: snowpack on September 17, 2013, 10:05:09 PM
Ok so he must have adjusted for about 14 feet elevation and he had around 49 foot pounds of energy and thats if there was no wind lol.any head wind and it would have hit the antelope like a bee.by the way a 1 mile an hour side wind would have thrown that bullet off about 2 in.with a 40 grain bullet at 100 yards the bullet is only traveling at around 1000 fps.and if the speed of sound is 1126 fps that .22 would be tumbleing all over the place at around 200 yards,so in conclusion i say no way could this even be a good story let alone a true one lol. :yike: :chuckle:It was a .22 High Power not a .22 LR. The high power is between the .223 and the .22-250.
Post by: snowpack on September 17, 2013, 10:42:24 PM
Post by: Mike450r on September 17, 2013, 11:17:07 PM
There is no model 1899
Savage model 1899
Post by: stevemiller on September 17, 2013, 11:32:51 PM
Yep i found it,it was made in 1912 with the .22 cal.i was looking around the 1899 era.anyways yes as a matter of a fact after reading everything about this it is very easy to believe that a person could have shot this at even 500 yards.thanks all i haven't taken out these antique load books for a very long time. :tup:There is no model 1899
Savage model 1899
Post by: RadSav on September 17, 2013, 11:56:14 PM
The original load data for the .22 High Power stated it was developed by Charles Newton by down sizing the neck of the 25-35 and would push a 70-grain bullet to a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps. Liking the speed and performance of the .22 High Power so much Newton quickly turned to the development of the 250-3000. A round he specifically designed to match the .22 High Power velocity with a 100 grain bullet. It was marketing pressure that brought about the 87 grain 3000fps and the 25cal Newton became the 250-3000 Savage.
Now the .22 High Power is pretty much known as the 5.6x52R. I'm not sure what that load data is like today, though I understand it is still popular among European deer and varmint hunters.
Post by: RadSav on September 18, 2013, 12:01:09 AM
Agreed, the 22-250 was designed in the 30s but wasnt produced until mid sixties by rem.I will look in my old load books and check to see if any of this is in there. :tup:
Savage did not offer a 22-250 version of the Model 99 until 1977. It was very short lived and was dropped from the line by 1980.
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 12:25:02 AM
The .22 High Power was not available until 1912. But the 1899 was available prior to that.This is all the same data that i had on here for you but took down by accident.
The original load data for the .22 High Power stated it was developed by Charles Newton by down sizing the neck of the 25-35 and would push a 70-grain bullet to a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps. Liking the speed and performance of the .22 High Power so much Newton quickly turned to the development of the 250-3000. A round he specifically designed to match the .22 High Power velocity with a 100 grain bullet. It was marketing pressure that brought about the 87 grain 3000fps and the 25cal Newton became the 250-3000 Savage.
Now the .22 High Power is pretty much known as the 5.6x52R. I'm not sure what that load data is like today, though I understand it is still popular among European deer and varmint hunters.
Post by: RadSav on September 18, 2013, 12:53:23 AM
This is all the same data that i had on here for you but took down by accident.
I hate it when that happens :chuckle: Nothing more fun than typing for 10 minutes just to hit the wrong button and POW! I could use a "Are you sure?" button before I leave a post :bash: My Staples "Easy Button" doesn't seem to work >:(
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 12:55:27 AM
Post by: RadSav on September 18, 2013, 01:26:17 AM
Ha aint that the truth,so anyways do you also happen to have a pile of old ammo data books full of almost useless knowledge laying around?
I'm sort of a Savage 1899 and Winchester 88 nut. So not much outside anything about those two guns and the early ammo about those. Plus a bunch of cut and past stuff off the internet. Chuck Hawks has written about as much about these loads as anyone I know. Others probably have more information about such things as I do. The old Savage catalogs have been a treat each year. I try to purchase one as a b-day present to myself each year. Should have them all pretty soon.
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2013, 07:03:44 AM
Ha aint that the truth,so anyways do you also happen to have a pile of old ammo data books full of almost useless knowledge laying around?
That's funny. I was just reading through Speer Volume One last night. :chuckle:
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
Awsome,ive been collecting these books from bookstores and yard sales for years,a lot has changed and some things have never come close to what was lol.Good reading for sure.Ha aint that the truth,so anyways do you also happen to have a pile of old ammo data books full of almost useless knowledge laying around?
That's funny. I was just reading through Speer Volume One last night. :chuckle:
Post by: Mike450r on September 18, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Awsome,ive been collecting these books from bookstores and yard sales for years,a lot has changed and some things have never come close to what was lol.Good reading for sure.Ha aint that the truth,so anyways do you also happen to have a pile of old ammo data books full of almost useless knowledge laying around?
That's funny. I was just reading through Speer Volume One last night. :chuckle:
When I worked for a commercial re-loader I had to read 5 or 6 manuals before I graduated from packaging to loading. They are some of my favorite books to this day. The stories and history that are included for every caliber are awesome, they are a major factor in how I decide on what my next one will be. I am thinking right now about .264 Win.
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 10:05:11 AM
Post by: jdb on September 18, 2013, 05:54:28 PM
there were no antelope on clemans in the 50'sAfter concluding my info. This is just a tall tale story. It could of been taken somewhere in wa though. I will have to say thompson has been here all of his life and does have some intel on the history of naches.Absolutely could have been taken around here in the 50s,even with a .22. :tup:
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 09:07:26 PM
Post by: stevemiller on September 18, 2013, 09:17:59 PM
Post by: jdb on September 19, 2013, 05:55:09 AM
Post by: Curly on September 19, 2013, 06:01:19 AM
Quote
During the late 1930’s and 1940’s pronghorn antelope were released on the Yakima Training Center (Oliver, no date). By the early 1970’s these animals had disappeared, most likely due to a restricted gene pool since the original introduction only included around 20-30 animals. There were also stories of poaching and shooting by the military. Small groups of animals were also moved to other areas within eastern Washington, but did not subsist, probably for the same reasons
http://www.ynwildlife.org/pronghorn.php (http://www.ynwildlife.org/pronghorn.php)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01156/wdfw01156.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01156/wdfw01156.pdf)
The above link has some detailed info on the history of pronghorn in WA and detailed info on the reintroduction of them by the dept of game in the past.
Post by: boneaddict on September 19, 2013, 07:15:16 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fboneaddict002%2Fant13cc_zps07951f45.jpg&hash=b68d8de2dd1882ef2be7aab4e669f4a45b72c8a9)
Clarification: photographer is from the Wenas, the antelope is not
Post by: jdb on September 19, 2013, 07:24:22 PM