25-06 powerfull enough for deer
07-11-2005, 08:16 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
ORIGINAL: CanWoodsman
zrexpilot I know your a .243 fanand I won't cut down your favorite round BUT your statement just don't cut it. The 25-06 with its heavier bullets holds more down range energy for deer sized game. As for varmits the 25.06 will push equal weight bullets faster & flatter. Yes the .243 has lighter bullets which itcan push to about the same speed .
Yes the .243 is a good round but it can not compare to the 25-06 as the game approaches deer sized.
zrexpilot I know your a .243 fanand I won't cut down your favorite round BUT your statement just don't cut it. The 25-06 with its heavier bullets holds more down range energy for deer sized game. As for varmits the 25.06 will push equal weight bullets faster & flatter. Yes the .243 has lighter bullets which itcan push to about the same speed .
Yes the .243 is a good round but it can not compare to the 25-06 as the game approaches deer sized.
They are too closein performance, to say one is superior is just ridiculous, thats like saying ayou cant compare a 25-06 to a .270.
Ive killed deer with a lot of calibers.The deer doesnt know a difference between a .243 or a 7 mag. Ive used both. And I couldnt tell the difference on the damage of internals either.I just dont need all that bang of a big gun. like I said, deer didnt know the difference, but i do.
Go to federals web site and compare the 85 gr bullets in .243 and the -06. Pretty darn close. the -06 starts off faster but at the end the .243 is faster with a tad more energy too. the -06 has about an 1 1/2" less bullet drop but has 3 more inches in wind drift. Very very close in performance and with out the mule kick, and you can put 55 gr bullets in the .243 for the real small stuff and is flatter shooting than just about anything.
You couldnt go wrong with either caliber, I just have my favorite.
I also am worried about people asking if a 25-06 enough for deer, jeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!
What is happening ?
07-12-2005, 06:13 AM
#22
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 287
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
ORIGINAL: zrexpilot
Go to federals web site and compare the 85 gr bullets in .243 and the -06. Pretty darn close. the -06 starts off faster but at the end the .243 is faster with a tad more energy too. the -06 has about an 1 1/2" less bullet drop but has 3 more inches in wind drift. Very very close in performance
Go to federals web site and compare the 85 gr bullets in .243 and the -06. Pretty darn close. the -06 starts off faster but at the end the .243 is faster with a tad more energy too. the -06 has about an 1 1/2" less bullet drop but has 3 more inches in wind drift. Very very close in performance
If you were to use the same site but compare 100 g. bullets you would clearly see the 25.06 is faster, flatter, less wind drift & more down range energy. These are bulletsare recomended for deer sized game. Also the 25-06 has the option of using bullets up to120 g.
But then maybe you did notice this but as it could not support your arguement you forgot to mention it?
07-12-2005, 07:29 AM
#23
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WC FL
Posts: 26,323
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
By Chuck Hawks
Illustration courtesy of Hornady Mfg. Co.
>>>>After careful consideration, I would like to propose that the .243 Winchester cartridge be considered as the successor to the 5.56mm NATO. The military would undoubtedly call the cartridge the "6mm NATO."
I chose the .243 Win. partly because of the old 6mm Lee Navy rifle of 1895, which was once service standard for the U.S. Navy. Thus, the U.S. military has some history with 6mm cartridges. I admit that the 6mm Remington, .257 Roberts, and other similar cartridges would serve about as well as the .243. I favor the latter because it is the best known and most popular of all the .24-.25 caliber cartridges, and because it was created by simply necking down the 7.62mm NATO case. I thought that case commonality would appeal to the military, and simplify mass production of both cartridges in wartime. (The 7.62mm remains the standard NATO machine gun cartridge.)
I also took a long look at the .25-08 wildcat and .260 Rem., both also based on a necked down .308 case. I determined that the .243 offered better penetration than the .25-08 with the same weight bullet at the same velocity, due to superior sectional density (SD), at no increase in recoil. The situation is similar when comparing the .243 to the .260, only more so. With the same weight bullet at the same velocity, the .260 is inferior to both the .25-08 and the .243 in penetration. The .260 requires approximately a 15% increase in bullet weigh to equal the .243 in sectional density (and thus penetration). I suspect that the military would find the resultant increase in recoil and decrease in velocity unacceptable.
Remember, the purpose of this exercise it to retain, as much as possible, the low recoil and flat trajectory of the 5.56mm NATO while addressing its shortcomings. The .243 preserves these benefits better than any of the other contenders. The .243 would have several significant advantages over the current 5.56mm NATO, which I will discuss in the following paragraphs.
Clearly, the .243 offers a modest but worthwhile increase in bullet diameter and frontal area. This increases lethality by enlarging the wound channel.
The sectional density of an 85-100 grain .24 caliber (6mm) bullet is far superior to that of any .22 caliber bullet. It also compares favorably to .30 caliber bullets. Sectional density is the ratio of a bullet's weight in pounds to the square of its diameter in inches. Other things being equal, sectional density is the primary factor in determining penetration. Thus, if we are comparing two similar non-expanding boat tail spitzer bullets (like typical military full metal jacket ball ammunition), fired at the same velocity, the one with the greater sectional density will penetrate deepest.
A 55 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO has a SD of only .157. A 150 grain bullet for the 7.62mm NATO has a SD of .226. This explains why, when the military changed from the 7.62mm (.30 cal.) to the 5.56mm (.22 cal.), they found that it didn't penetrate nearly as well. The poor penetration of the 55 grain .22 bullet led to the eventual adoption of the heavier 62 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. Muzzle velocity fell to around 3,000 fps. Sectional density was increased to .177. Penetration improved, but is still considerably inferior to that of the 150 grain .30 caliber bullet. If we adopted the .243 Win. with a 95 grain bullet, whose SD is .230 (slightly better than the 150 grain .30 bullet), penetration would easily exceed that of the 62 grain .22 bullet. This is a valid comparison, as the .243 can drive a 95 grain bullet at 3,100 fps. I think it is clear that the .243 is a winner compared to the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm in terms of sectional density and penetration.
.243 bullets are also winners in terms of ballistic coefficient (BC). Without getting too technical, ballistic coefficient indicates a bullet's ability to overcome air drag. This is important for flat trajectory, and for minimizing wind drift. (The higher the BC, the slower a bullet sheds velocity, and consequently the less it drifts in the wind.) Ballistic coefficient is influenced by many factors, and changes with velocity, so all BC figures should be taken as approximate.
For example, using Nosler Ballistic Tip (boat tail spitzer) bullets for comparison, the 150 grain .30 caliber bullet has a BC of .435. The 95 grain .243 bullet has a BC of .379. The 55 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO has a BC of only .267, despite its streamlined appearance.
At typical 5.56mm velocities, this bullet's lateral drift at 300 yards in a light 10 MPH crosswind is 14.2 inches. This is enough to blow a perfectly aimed bullet completely off a man-size target! The 5.56mm 62 grain FMJ-boat tail spitzer has a BC of .307. This is still very inferior to the BC of the .243's 95 grain bullet. At typical .243 velocities, the 95 grain bullet's lateral drift at 300 yards in a 10 MPH crosswind is about 6.3 inches.
The 5.56mm NATO is a flat-shooting cartridge, much better than the 7.62x39 and somewhat superior to the 7.62mm NATO. From a rifle zeroed at 200 yards, a 55 grain Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 3,240 fps. hits 20.8 inches below the point of aim at 400 yards.
For comparison, a 150 grain 7.62mm NATO Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 2,820 fps hits 22.7 inches low at 400 yards. Zero a 7.62x39 Soviet rifle at 200 yards, and the typical FMJ bullet hits 43.5 inches low at 400 yards. (That's over 3 feet below the point of aim!)
But the .243 shoots even flatter than the 5.56mm. From a rifle zeroed at 200 yards, the 95 grain Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 3100 fps hits only 18.9 inches below the point of aim at 400 yards.
Clearly, when it comes to slipping through the air, the .24 caliber bullets are among the best. As civilian varmint shooters have known for years, the .243 is an excellent long range cartridge that combines a very flat trajectory with minimum wind drift.
Civilian deer, sheep, goat, and antelope hunters know that the .243 Win. is a much better killer on animals in the 100-350 pound class than the .223 Rem. A 95 grain .243 boat tail spitzer bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps. retains 1,455 ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards, 1,225 ft. lbs. at 300 yards, 1,024 ft. lbs. at 400 yards, and 890 ft. lbs. at 500 yards (Winchester figures). The .243 is more lethal at 500 yards than the 5.56mm NATO or 7.62x39 are at 200 yards!
Civilian shooters have also learned that the recoil of the .243, even in a lightweight rifle, is quite tolerable for extended shooting sessions. Light recoil is very desirable, not only to avoid flinching and promote accurate shooting, but because modern military rifles must be capable of delivering rapid aimed fire. (Rapid unaimed fire is pointless--you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.) To shoot both quickly and accurately, recovery time from full recoil must be rapid. While the .243 Win. kicks more than the 5.56mm NATO, it kicks much less than the 7.62mm NATO, and does in fact allow quick recovery. A 7.5 pound .243 rifle shooting a 95 grain bullet generates around 10 ft. lbs. of recoil energy. This is about half of what an experienced shooter can tolerate. Even inexperienced shooters will not find this bothersome. Light recoil (plus flat trajectory and proven effectiveness) is why the .243 is such a popular hunting cartridge, and so widely recommended for youth, women, and anyone sensitive to recoil.
A modern selective fire military rifle with single fire and three-shot burst capability should be easy to develop for the .243 Win. cartridge. After all, the .243 case is based on the 7.62mm NATO case, which was developed specifically for use in automatic rifles. Sustained fully automatic fire is also quite possible for a 6mm service rifle, although I question its value. Even with a cartridge as under powered as the 5.56mm NATO, full auto fire has proven to be a waste of ammunition. Bullets must be aimed if they are to hit the target, and experience has shown that if a shooter can't hit the target with his first three shots, he probably won't hit the target at all.
On the other hand, a bipod mounted light machine gun (a successor to the old BAR) chambered for the long range, hard hitting .243 Win. cartridge might be a very effective weapon. But that is a subject for another article.
It seems to me that these factors bode well for the success of the .243 Win. as a military cartridge. Should we begin calling it the "6mm NATO"?
Illustration courtesy of Hornady Mfg. Co.
>>>>After careful consideration, I would like to propose that the .243 Winchester cartridge be considered as the successor to the 5.56mm NATO. The military would undoubtedly call the cartridge the "6mm NATO."
I chose the .243 Win. partly because of the old 6mm Lee Navy rifle of 1895, which was once service standard for the U.S. Navy. Thus, the U.S. military has some history with 6mm cartridges. I admit that the 6mm Remington, .257 Roberts, and other similar cartridges would serve about as well as the .243. I favor the latter because it is the best known and most popular of all the .24-.25 caliber cartridges, and because it was created by simply necking down the 7.62mm NATO case. I thought that case commonality would appeal to the military, and simplify mass production of both cartridges in wartime. (The 7.62mm remains the standard NATO machine gun cartridge.)
I also took a long look at the .25-08 wildcat and .260 Rem., both also based on a necked down .308 case. I determined that the .243 offered better penetration than the .25-08 with the same weight bullet at the same velocity, due to superior sectional density (SD), at no increase in recoil. The situation is similar when comparing the .243 to the .260, only more so. With the same weight bullet at the same velocity, the .260 is inferior to both the .25-08 and the .243 in penetration. The .260 requires approximately a 15% increase in bullet weigh to equal the .243 in sectional density (and thus penetration). I suspect that the military would find the resultant increase in recoil and decrease in velocity unacceptable.
Remember, the purpose of this exercise it to retain, as much as possible, the low recoil and flat trajectory of the 5.56mm NATO while addressing its shortcomings. The .243 preserves these benefits better than any of the other contenders. The .243 would have several significant advantages over the current 5.56mm NATO, which I will discuss in the following paragraphs.
Clearly, the .243 offers a modest but worthwhile increase in bullet diameter and frontal area. This increases lethality by enlarging the wound channel.
The sectional density of an 85-100 grain .24 caliber (6mm) bullet is far superior to that of any .22 caliber bullet. It also compares favorably to .30 caliber bullets. Sectional density is the ratio of a bullet's weight in pounds to the square of its diameter in inches. Other things being equal, sectional density is the primary factor in determining penetration. Thus, if we are comparing two similar non-expanding boat tail spitzer bullets (like typical military full metal jacket ball ammunition), fired at the same velocity, the one with the greater sectional density will penetrate deepest.
A 55 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO has a SD of only .157. A 150 grain bullet for the 7.62mm NATO has a SD of .226. This explains why, when the military changed from the 7.62mm (.30 cal.) to the 5.56mm (.22 cal.), they found that it didn't penetrate nearly as well. The poor penetration of the 55 grain .22 bullet led to the eventual adoption of the heavier 62 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. Muzzle velocity fell to around 3,000 fps. Sectional density was increased to .177. Penetration improved, but is still considerably inferior to that of the 150 grain .30 caliber bullet. If we adopted the .243 Win. with a 95 grain bullet, whose SD is .230 (slightly better than the 150 grain .30 bullet), penetration would easily exceed that of the 62 grain .22 bullet. This is a valid comparison, as the .243 can drive a 95 grain bullet at 3,100 fps. I think it is clear that the .243 is a winner compared to the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm in terms of sectional density and penetration.
.243 bullets are also winners in terms of ballistic coefficient (BC). Without getting too technical, ballistic coefficient indicates a bullet's ability to overcome air drag. This is important for flat trajectory, and for minimizing wind drift. (The higher the BC, the slower a bullet sheds velocity, and consequently the less it drifts in the wind.) Ballistic coefficient is influenced by many factors, and changes with velocity, so all BC figures should be taken as approximate.
For example, using Nosler Ballistic Tip (boat tail spitzer) bullets for comparison, the 150 grain .30 caliber bullet has a BC of .435. The 95 grain .243 bullet has a BC of .379. The 55 grain bullet for the 5.56mm NATO has a BC of only .267, despite its streamlined appearance.
At typical 5.56mm velocities, this bullet's lateral drift at 300 yards in a light 10 MPH crosswind is 14.2 inches. This is enough to blow a perfectly aimed bullet completely off a man-size target! The 5.56mm 62 grain FMJ-boat tail spitzer has a BC of .307. This is still very inferior to the BC of the .243's 95 grain bullet. At typical .243 velocities, the 95 grain bullet's lateral drift at 300 yards in a 10 MPH crosswind is about 6.3 inches.
The 5.56mm NATO is a flat-shooting cartridge, much better than the 7.62x39 and somewhat superior to the 7.62mm NATO. From a rifle zeroed at 200 yards, a 55 grain Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 3,240 fps. hits 20.8 inches below the point of aim at 400 yards.
For comparison, a 150 grain 7.62mm NATO Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 2,820 fps hits 22.7 inches low at 400 yards. Zero a 7.62x39 Soviet rifle at 200 yards, and the typical FMJ bullet hits 43.5 inches low at 400 yards. (That's over 3 feet below the point of aim!)
But the .243 shoots even flatter than the 5.56mm. From a rifle zeroed at 200 yards, the 95 grain Ballistic Tip bullet at a MV of 3100 fps hits only 18.9 inches below the point of aim at 400 yards.
Clearly, when it comes to slipping through the air, the .24 caliber bullets are among the best. As civilian varmint shooters have known for years, the .243 is an excellent long range cartridge that combines a very flat trajectory with minimum wind drift.
Civilian deer, sheep, goat, and antelope hunters know that the .243 Win. is a much better killer on animals in the 100-350 pound class than the .223 Rem. A 95 grain .243 boat tail spitzer bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps. retains 1,455 ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards, 1,225 ft. lbs. at 300 yards, 1,024 ft. lbs. at 400 yards, and 890 ft. lbs. at 500 yards (Winchester figures). The .243 is more lethal at 500 yards than the 5.56mm NATO or 7.62x39 are at 200 yards!
Civilian shooters have also learned that the recoil of the .243, even in a lightweight rifle, is quite tolerable for extended shooting sessions. Light recoil is very desirable, not only to avoid flinching and promote accurate shooting, but because modern military rifles must be capable of delivering rapid aimed fire. (Rapid unaimed fire is pointless--you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.) To shoot both quickly and accurately, recovery time from full recoil must be rapid. While the .243 Win. kicks more than the 5.56mm NATO, it kicks much less than the 7.62mm NATO, and does in fact allow quick recovery. A 7.5 pound .243 rifle shooting a 95 grain bullet generates around 10 ft. lbs. of recoil energy. This is about half of what an experienced shooter can tolerate. Even inexperienced shooters will not find this bothersome. Light recoil (plus flat trajectory and proven effectiveness) is why the .243 is such a popular hunting cartridge, and so widely recommended for youth, women, and anyone sensitive to recoil.
A modern selective fire military rifle with single fire and three-shot burst capability should be easy to develop for the .243 Win. cartridge. After all, the .243 case is based on the 7.62mm NATO case, which was developed specifically for use in automatic rifles. Sustained fully automatic fire is also quite possible for a 6mm service rifle, although I question its value. Even with a cartridge as under powered as the 5.56mm NATO, full auto fire has proven to be a waste of ammunition. Bullets must be aimed if they are to hit the target, and experience has shown that if a shooter can't hit the target with his first three shots, he probably won't hit the target at all.
On the other hand, a bipod mounted light machine gun (a successor to the old BAR) chambered for the long range, hard hitting .243 Win. cartridge might be a very effective weapon. But that is a subject for another article.
It seems to me that these factors bode well for the success of the .243 Win. as a military cartridge. Should we begin calling it the "6mm NATO"?
07-12-2005, 08:31 AM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
ORIGINAL: CanWoodsman
As for varmits the 25.06 will push equal weight bullets faster & flatter
As for varmits the 25.06 will push equal weight bullets faster & flatter
ORIGINAL: CanWoodsman
On a discusion on deer hunting its funny you choose to compare 2 , 85 g. bullets that the manufacturer recomends for varmits.
On a discusion on deer hunting its funny you choose to compare 2 , 85 g. bullets that the manufacturer recomends for varmits.
I looked at the 100 gr bullet comparos also, it does shoot a tad flatter, but a tad more wind drift too, energy isa miniscule better. But look at sectional density and you will see the 100 gr bullet in .243 will offer more penetration as opposed to the 100 gr in the -06.
again these guns are very close in performance. But the -06 needs 115 gr or 120 gr to offer the same sectional density as the 100 gr .243
But when you want to go for varmints the .243 will offer a 55 gr bullet thats pushing near 4000 fps with a very very flat trajectory. 27 inches of drop@ 500 yds with a 200 yd zero.
07-12-2005, 09:05 AM
#25
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,052
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
Who made Chuck Hawks "the gold standard"? I take what he has to say with a grain of salt and a stout handcart fulla boosheut. He sure can talk a good game, espouse figures and this and that. BOTTOM LINE how much game has he killed with all these cartridges?
As for the 25aught naught. IMHO I wasn't impressed with it. 15 years ago I had one for a summer and almost throughout an entire season. It was a then rare Weatherby Vanguard VGX and I killed two bucks with it. Neither of them went down instantly (and one was killed at only 20 yds while I was on the ground). BUT they certainly died very shortly and the gun was amazingly accurate. Someother scumbag decided to borrow it without asking and has yet to return it! [:@]
It certainly aint a 257 Wby, but it doesnt kick or make much racket while doin so either! For the original question, yeah it would make a great caliber for that purpose. I too wish I wouldve had super bullets like the TSX when I had mine. Who knows, might have to give one another try someday!
RA
As for the 25aught naught. IMHO I wasn't impressed with it. 15 years ago I had one for a summer and almost throughout an entire season. It was a then rare Weatherby Vanguard VGX and I killed two bucks with it. Neither of them went down instantly (and one was killed at only 20 yds while I was on the ground). BUT they certainly died very shortly and the gun was amazingly accurate. Someother scumbag decided to borrow it without asking and has yet to return it! [:@]
It certainly aint a 257 Wby, but it doesnt kick or make much racket while doin so either! For the original question, yeah it would make a great caliber for that purpose. I too wish I wouldve had super bullets like the TSX when I had mine. Who knows, might have to give one another try someday!
RA
07-12-2005, 11:44 AM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Western Nebraska
Posts: 3,393
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
I've used the .25-06 (as well as the .257 Roberts) since 1970 for deer and pronghorns and consider it almost the ideal cartridge for hunting this size animal. IMO the 6.5-06 is the ideal cartridge but the .25-06 is so close as to be it's identical twin.
As a varmint gun it's not a .22-250 but it'll do the job nicely although on prairie dogs the recoil gets to me after 100 rounds in a day. For those wanting a combo gun this is as close to ideal as it gets.
As a varmint gun it's not a .22-250 but it'll do the job nicely although on prairie dogs the recoil gets to me after 100 rounds in a day. For those wanting a combo gun this is as close to ideal as it gets.
07-12-2005, 01:11 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Moccasin, Montana
Posts: 1,835
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
The 25-06 is the best deer/antelopecaliber ever made.It also will double as a varmit gun.
Hence how that is worded,it is not a varmit gun made to be a deer rifle(.243) but it is a deer rifle made to be a varmit gun aslo.
I hunt coyotes alot with the 25-06 and prefer it over the .243,but I also have a .223 that gets more gophers/praie dogs than the 25-06.
I don't care about pelt damage to any coyote I generaly aim for bone to get the biggest hole through them.
Get 25-06 and be happy
BBJ
Hence how that is worded,it is not a varmit gun made to be a deer rifle(.243) but it is a deer rifle made to be a varmit gun aslo.
I hunt coyotes alot with the 25-06 and prefer it over the .243,but I also have a .223 that gets more gophers/praie dogs than the 25-06.
I don't care about pelt damage to any coyote I generaly aim for bone to get the biggest hole through them.
Get 25-06 and be happy
BBJ
07-12-2005, 01:43 PM
#28
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,127
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
This sounds like the "Terminate with Extreme Prejudice" attitude toward the small wolves 
Have you ever tried the .257 caliber 85 gr. Nosler Ballistic tips for this application? The spot where the 'yote was standing looks like a crime scene . . . .
Have you ever tried the .257 caliber 85 gr. Nosler Ballistic tips for this application? The spot where the 'yote was standing looks like a crime scene . . . .
07-12-2005, 01:50 PM
#29
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WC FL
Posts: 26,323
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
[/align]
[blockquote]
[/align]
[blockquote]
Deleted[/blockquote][/blockquote]
[blockquote]
[/align]
[blockquote]
ORIGINAL:This sounds like the "Terminate with Extreme Prejudice" attitude toward the small wolves Have you ever tried the .257 caliber 85 gr. Nosler Ballistic tips for this application? The spot where the 'yote was standing looks like a crime scene . . . .Roskoe
Have you ever tried the .257 caliber 85 gr. Nosler Ballistic tips for this application? The spot where the 'yote was standing looks like a crime scene . . . .Roskoe
Deleted[/blockquote][/blockquote]
07-12-2005, 02:38 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Moccasin, Montana
Posts: 1,835
RE: 25-06 powerfull enough for deer
I have not used the 85 gr for the yotes,I use the 90 gr poistive exspantion HP from Winchester.
I don't like to skin those flea and tick infested vagrants,oh I have andI would if I could get any good money for them,but for now I rid the praries and the mountains of them.
BBJ
I don't like to skin those flea and tick infested vagrants,oh I have andI would if I could get any good money for them,but for now I rid the praries and the mountains of them.
BBJ