Outdoor Life.

The 7mm PRC made quite a splash when it was introduced by Hornady just four years ago, with some calling it the “modern magnum” of 7mm cartridges. That’s because it embodies the same modern cartridge design principles used in rounds like the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 PRC, and 300 PRC. In some ways, it outshines all of these, and delivers more efficient performance than the 7mm Rem. Mag. It does so from a standard-length action without using a belted case.

Based on a shortened .375 Ruger parent case, the 7mm PRC uses long, heavy-for-caliber bullets in rifles with fast rates of twist (most often 1:8). As a result, it shoots flat, bucks the wind, retains velocity downrange and is inherently accurate. Using Hornady’s 175-gr. ELD-X bullet, the round stays supersonic past 1,800 yards, and energy doesn’t drop below 1,000 foot-pounds until nearly 1,200 yards. That’s overkill for the whitetail woods, but it makes the cartridge a great choice for Western hunters pursuing mule deer and elk at longer ranges. It is also very much at home on the African plains.

Rifles chambered in 7mm PRC generally produce great accuracy — especially when compared to some of the traditional magnum cartridges. PRC stands for Precision Rifle Cartridge, and the entire family of PRC cartridges was designed from the beginning to produce superior accuracy at distance.

The 7mm Rem Mag was not. It was designed to perform well on game at a time when 1.5-MOA accuracy was considered very good for factory rifles using factory ammunition. This isn’t to say that the 7mm Rem Mag is an inaccurate cartridge. Over the years, my average 3-shot groups with most 7mm Rem Mag rifles were fairly close to one MOA, or a little better with loads those rifles preferred — a few guns occasionally did better. This, of course, is just my anecdotal experiences shooting the cartridge, not the end-all-be-all commentary on its accuracy.

The rifles I’ve shot in 7mm PRC have seldom failed to print 3/4-MOA-or-better average groups and half-inch-or-better best groups at 100 yards (these were 3-shot groups, again take this as anecdotal evidence).

I think this all depends on the weight of the gun and the ammunition you shoot. Frankly, I don’t really like the Hornady ammunition. In my 7mm PRC rifle I find that Nosler does better.

You will often hear that the 7mm Rem Mag produces more recoil than the 7mm PRC, but that’s not necessarily the case. Yes, the 7mm Rem Mag can produce a punishing level of recoil, especially out of lighter rifles with heavier loads. However, many hunters commonly shoot 7mm Rem Mag ammo loaded with lighter 140- to 160-gr. bullets, which can produce less recoil than shooting the 7mm PRC’s heavier standard bullets.

Those fast, light loads came in handy at a time when hunters were mostly using the holdover method for longer shots (before laser rangefinders were invented). Part of the 7mm Rem Mag’s appeal, especially with Western hunters, was that it shot relatively flat.

On average, the 7mm Rem Mag produces about 22-25 ft-lbs. of recoil energy, while the 7mm PRC produces average recoil energy of approximately 25-29 ft-lbs. However, those average numbers can be misleading because recoil energy varies greatly depending on factors like rifle weight, bullet weight, and powder charge.

With heavy rifles, recoil with both the 7mm Rem Mag and 7mm PRC is manageable for most shooters. Drop the rifle weight down, and recoil can become a problem for either cartridge.

You need a muzzle brake. At one time in my shooting career, I would have considered this amount of recoil to be punishing. That was true up until I shot the 444 Marlin, which honestly isn’t so punishing either when you’re hunting. It’s quite manageable — right up until you’ve shot 15 or so rounds bench rest. And then I begin to look for opportunities to rest and regroup between shots. There is no point to shooting that many rounds of 444 Marlin anyway. Sight it in and be done. It’s a hunting round.

As I’ve mentioned, I am profoundly impressed with the 7mm PRC.

Source.

An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional.

The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times.

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.

“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.”

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.”

Uh huh. That last bit is why “common use” is such a dangerous argument, isn’t it? Should it be 11, or 15, or 17? Or should the government stay out of the business of the people?

Anyway, I don’t really care what’s in common use. I care that high capacity magazines are useful and that it’s the right of people to own what they want.

And I don’t care whether they are called high capacity magazines or standard capacity magazines. That’s irrelevant subterfuge.

And I don’t really care whether marijuana smokers get to buy guns. If people don’t have guns to use with these magazines, why does it matter? When is the supreme court going to take up an AR ban case? Everything else is just flotsam and jetsam, noisemaking, and smoke and mirrors.

Why does everyone always ignore me? I get that some of these rounds are higher pressure rounds, but Rossi is able to handle the design. Henry could too. Or S&W. Or Marlin.

Caliber? I don’t understand. I’ve harassed Henry for years to build us a 460 & 500 Magnum S&W rifle. Also 454 Casull. Finally had to just get a Rossi 454.@HenryRifles

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 8, 2026

Jerry gets to have all the fun.

I didn’t know S&W had ever worked on a military shotgun. If this idea was floated today, I expect it would get stiff competition from the Beretta 1301 and Benelli M4.

We’ve discussed here, here, here, here and here the United Nations-hatched idea of “rewilding.” This ridiculous notion of rewilding is popular in the U.S., but only in states like Colorado and Oregon who have proposed to ban all hunting.

The propaganda is so pervasive now that you can see it everywhere. We need to “save the planet” on a massive scale (TED talk). Why Britain needs a greener culture through rewilding. Punk rewilding, that has turned into a gigantic plant to rob farmers of their land, eat less meat, and a cash grab that creates pots of money from which underserving and lazy people can steal. Can Scotland become the world’s first rewilding nation?

They have big plans for this UN program. Oh, the UK is in love with this, but doesn’t that make sense to you? If you send your only real men out and neuter them by fighting over ball games and ignore the rape of little girls in grooming gangs, while you also invite savage Muslims into your country, it stands to reason that such a program would assuage the injured souls of the guilty. Even UK police officers used police cars to help traffic girls for Pakistani rape gangs – all for a salary and pension, plus a bit extra, I’m sure.

Learn to live and get along with disease spreading feral hogs. Learn to live with Coyotes who kill livestock, wait on deer to give birth and eat the young along with the placenta (every deer hunter knows this happens). Learn to live with having no children or pets when Coyotes or other predators take them away and eat them. Learn to live with bears that are a danger to humans.

All for make-believe problems that are better handled by humans.

It is as if the opponents of human management believe bears to be immortal, never to die except at the hands of human hunters.  This is a false, emotional, irrational belief structure. All predators die. Death by human hunter is overwhelmingly less painful than death without human intervention.

[ … ]

Managed human hunting has evolved an ethos where a prime value is the “clean kill,” which minimizes the suffering of the animal. Compared to being torn apart by a bear, starving to death, or lingering death by accident, death by bullet is quick and painless.

[ … ]

Humans can manage wildlife populations to achieve greater productivity than when they are not managed. Non-Gmanagement results in horrific swings between environment-destroying maximum populations and ghastly minimum population deserts devoid of most large mammals. Most of North America was managed by humans with varying degrees of success long before Europeans were able to establish and maintain a presence.  Human management aims for high, but not destructive, productivity.

There are more trees in America than when the settlers landed. The deer herd size is much larger now that wildlife biologists set tag limits to control the rate of expansion of the herd. Humans know how to do this. Let nature take its course, and herds starve to death, predators eat humans, and nature swings badly between the extrema as if on a pendulum.  This is the same reasoning that fights forest fires when we should be doing controlled, managed or prescribed burns.

I see all of this as the logical successor to the lie of anthropogenic global warming. So, let’s rehearse what Professor Mann did. He wanted to prove AGW was real, but there isn’t enough historical temperature data to do that. Hence, he wanted a positive correlation between tree ring data and temperature data (for as long as we had it).

But there was just one problem. The so-called hockey stick. The temperatures went one way (down) and the tree ring data went the other (up). He couldn’t prove his point unless he hid the real data by renormalizing the data to be equivalent. The rewilders believe the same lie – the earth is dying and needs saving. They all need a religion, and the earth fits the bill.

Man is become God, and in order to save the planet, we need to suppress human activity and reintroduce predator animals. But you see the paradox, don’t you? Nature is king, but in order to pull that off, humans have to interact with it. The paradox doesn’t occur or maybe doesn’t matter to them.

The silliest thing is the “punks” who want to make beer and be rewilders. Can you imagine a worse waste of a life than drinking beer all the time and pushing UN programs? These little boys should be eating meat, farming, hunting, and learning to be protectors and providers. If they believed in having families maybe their little girls could use the help to stay safe from the Pakistani rape gangs in England. Instead, they sound like little junior high school girls who found something to believe in to fill the voids in their souls after thinking hard about the fact that little girls were raped on their watch and they did absolutely nothing about it.

It isn’t clear whether we should hurl insults at them or pity them.

Because of the cowardly actions of the supreme court, this sort of stuff keeps happening. And it will get worse and worse with time. They’ll turn your bolt action hunting rifle into a super accurate and incredibly dangerous sniper rifle.

The SCOTUS has run from this issue for years. It’s time to turn and face the music.

In oral arguments today at the First Circuit, a judge asked Massachusetts if the state's argument that AR-15s are unprotected by the Second Amendment because they're neither used in nor suitable for self-defense means that hunting guns also aren't protected (@ 14:30)

The state…

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 2, 2026

Source.

“Is it the government’s position that if I unlawfully use Ambien or I unlawfully use Xanax, then I become dangerous?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a lawyer for the Trump administration, which is arguing to uphold the current law. “What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple times a week makes someone dangerous?” she added.

It looks like the FedGov will lose this case and Hamani’s lawyers will win, despite not doing a very good job of the case.

If you’ve noticed, I haven’t linked or embedded much in the way of the gesticulations of the lawyers or the machinations of the courts recently.

I think most of this is smoke and mirrors. Unless and until the SCOTUS takes up an AR ban case and overturns those bad laws, nothing much has been accomplished.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch just torched the government’s position.🔥

Noting that many Founding Fathers ran on rum and whiskey, Gorsuch also said that they would have scoffed at the idea that the Second Amendment would have disarmed them. https://t.co/g06pifkiK3 pic.twitter.com/MBIMm9Yeua

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 2, 2026

Source.

A highly controversial ballot measure that seeks to protect all animal life is inching closer to passing in Oregon.

Known as the PEACE Act, which stands for People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions, the measure could potentially ban hunting, fishing, livestock slaughter, and animal testing, according to Fox 12 Oregon.

People who support the petition say “it’s about recognizing animals can feel pain and updating state law,” a News Watch 12 story explained.

But opponents of the act, such as Amy Patrick, of the Oregon Hunting Association, say if it passes, this legislation could have catastrophic effects on “ranchers, coastline economies, and wildlife management,” as per News Watch 12.

I see that Rachel Rear uses a stock photo for a hunter probably because she doesn’t actually know any hunters. When I see things like this I immediately think of the “rewilding” efforts that lead to things like this.

Wildlife biologists who have studied this their entire careers at DNRs are overlooked and ignored in favor of people who think they know better. No one bothers to think about the fact that predation, starvation and a host of other things cause as much or more pain as managing the herd by culling it.

Men know how to manage the herd size in order to maintain a healthy herd or slightly increase herd size over time, just like there are more trees in the U.S. than when the settlers landed on the shores. And not men who work for the U.N. Rewilding is a UN program. Real wildlife herd management is done by people who care and don’t have an agenda. In a recent commentary at Ammoland entieled Nature isn’t Gentle, Dean Weingarten explains.

It is as if the opponents of human management believe bears to be immortal, never to die except at the hands of human hunters.  This is a false, emotional, irrational belief structure. All predators die. Death by human hunter is overwhelmingly less painful than death without human intervention.

[ … ]

Managed human hunting has evolved an ethos where a prime value is the “clean kill,” which minimizes the suffering of the animal. Compared to being torn apart by a bear, starving to death, or lingering death by accident, death by bullet is quick and painless.

[ … ]

Humans can manage wildlife populations to achieve greater productivity than when they are not managed. Non-management results in horrific swings between environment-destroying maximum populations and ghastly minimum population deserts devoid of most large mammals. Most of North America was managed by humans with varying degrees of success long before Europeans were able to establish and maintain a presence.  Human management aims for high, but not destructive, productivity.

But Oregon is so overrun with ex-Californians that they wouldn’t listen to reason under any circumstances, and would favor the starvation of game animals or human predation by large, dangerous animals over managing the herd like it needs.

It’s the same thing with non-predatory game animals too. Too little hunting causes the herd size to precipitously increase, leading to starvation and diseases. Too much hunting leads to a smaller and less productive herd. DNRs across the country know how to manage that balance. Rachel Rear and her ilk do not.

I don’t really think this is all that difficult. Recall that I mentioned a few months ago I managed to put a 7mm PRC round on IPSC steel at 1000 yards, and was shooting with a friend who did the same thing four-rounds-for-four at 1000 yards with the 5.56mm? This isn’t magic.

And then, you can always use the same lowers and replace the M4 uppers with 6mm ARC uppers. That would make the job of engaging at 1000 yards even easier and more effective.

Longer term, if the US is going to have a professional military, it might make sense to (a) raise entrance ASVAB scores, (b) make enlistments 5 years instead of 4, (c) revamp the Scout Sniper program to ensure many more personnel could go through it, (d) add more schools for the infantryman such as high altitude shooting, cold weather combat and survival skills, etc., and in general make the American man a more effective, intelligent, well-training fighting machine.

To do that would require that they continue to dump DEI programs, limit combat to males and eject females from the infantryman MOS, and manage their money much more effectively.

But a change to 6mm ARC would be simple, cheap, and relatively painless. Or just teach infantrymen to shoot at 1000 yards with the use of Kestrels or some ballistic application.

Source.

Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a statewide disaster declaration over the continued northward expansion of the New World screwworm, which has been labeled by state officials as a threat to Texas’ wildlife and livestock industries.

“Although the New World screwworm fly is not yet present in Texas or the U.S., its northward spread from Mexico toward the U.S. southern border poses a serious threat to Texas’ livestock industry and wildlife,” said Abbott. “State law authorizes me to act to prevent a threat of infestation that could cause severe damage to Texas property, and I will not wait for such harm to reach our livestock and wildlife.” 

Originating in South America, the New World screwworm is a parasite that eats the tissue of warm-blooded mammals. Although there have not yet been any confirmed cases of the parasite in the U.S., multiple cases have been confirmed near Texas’ border with Mexico.

I’ve told you the answer to the screwworm threat (“All we needed to do was keep a flow of those planes. But the cartels were extorting money for every flight of flies that came out of Panama. They were extorting $35,000 a plane,” he said. “So, for all practical purposes, this is really kind of a political closing to make a point that they have got to get their act together”).

So you kill the cartel boss who’s extorting money for the USDA flights. Then when you try another flight and some cartel big wig tries to extort money from you, you send folks to kill him too. And so on. Until you reach the end of cartel bosses who want to perish because of fly drops.

There is no real problem that can’t be solved in this manner. The other option is to let our cattle herds be eaten alive and forswear ever eating beef again.

Which will it be?

Use this as an opportunity to force cartels to self-identity, and then kill them. This approach solves two problems at one time.

Otherwise, decide not to eat beef.