During a bird hunt last October, I found that a short-barreled shotgun of the type usually relegated to home defense offered a number of advantages when pursuing ruffed grouse in the thick woods of eastern Maine. The short, 18.5-inch barrel of my Benelli Nova Tactical was easily maneuvered through thickets and brambles and the gun’s fixed, improved cylinder choke meant shot columns spread quickly, increasing the likelihood of a hit on a flying bird at close range.

While the Nova performed admirably in the brushy grouse woods, its versatility is ultimately limited by the fact that its barrel is not threaded to accept choke tubes. A fixed improved cylinder choke is great for close range bird hunting, but is less than ideal for turkey hunting or when trying to achieve tight buckshot patterns beyond 15 yards. Additionally, my experience has been that the addition of a rifled choke tube will noticeably tighten slug groups.

In order to add the versatility I desire to a shotgun I love, I ordered an aftermarket Benelli Nova replacement barrel from Carlson’s Choke Tubes of Atwood, Kansas. While the company distributes a small variety of these Turkish made aftermarket barrels for the Benelli Nova and Supernova (as well as for the Remington 870), the model I acquired comes with a Carlson’s rifled choke tube installed.

Above: The Carlson’s Benelli Nova aftermarket replacement barrel (top) compared to the Benelli Nova factory barrel.

Specs and features

The barrel has a 3.5-inch chamber, sports a chrome-lined bore, is made from grade 4140 steel, and is equipped with a rifle style front sight. The rifled choke tube is made from 304 high stress stainless steel and has a twist rate of 1:35. The barrel’s length without the rifled tube installed is 18.5-inches. With the rifled tube installed, the barrel’s length is a shade under 19.5-inches. The barrel’s threads will accept choke tubes of the Benelli Mobil type.

A rifled choke tube? But why?

Rifled choke tubes are a much maligned piece of equipment, often derided by hunters and shooters who have never used one. While it is true that a few inches of rifling at the end of a barrel will do little or nothing to help stabilize the type of saboted shotgun slug designed for use in a fully rifled bore, my experience has been that a rifled tube will improve accuracy out to 100 yards when slugs with a nose-heavy design (such as Fosters and Brennekes) are used.

Above: A look down the business end of a rifled choke tube.

Sight compatibility concerns

Upon inspecting the new barrel, my biggest concern was that the front sight will not be compatible with ghost ring rear sight currently mounted on the Nova’s receiver. The front sight on the factory barrel protrudes to a height of approximately 1-inch while the sight on the aftermarket barrel is less than ½-inch high. I’m concerned that there won’t be enough adjustment allowed by the rear sight to accommodate the low profile sight on the new barrel. If this is the case, it will give me an excuse to have the gun drilled and tapped for an optic mount.

Above: The front sight on the Carlson’s replacement Nova barrel.

I plan on getting the new barrel to the range for a trial this Friday, barring inclement weather or a range closure.

Update 8/12/13: I took the barrel to the range today and unfortunately, my fears about the rear sight not being compatible with the front sight were confirmed. I was unable to adjust the rear sight enough to get any rounds on paper at 50 yards. A meaningful review of the barrel will have to wait until I can have my gun drilled and tapped for an optic, which is something I’ve been meaning to do for a while anyway.

  (47)

In a recent post, I wrote that I had recently acquired a Zastava M85 chambered in 7.62x39mm. The rifle, manufactured by Serbia’s Zastava Arms and imported by Century Arms International, is a compact bolt action priced just right for a gun that will fill the role primarily as a plinker and secondarily as deer rifle for close to medium range work.

Earlier this week I got the rifle to the local range for its first live fire trial and while there are some characteristics of the gun that are less than stellar, I’m inclined to think it will ultimately fill its intended niche adequately. Here’s the lowdown on the Zastava M85.

Shooting

I couldn’t, in good conscience, title this section “accuracy” as my currently rusty level of proficiency, excessive coffee consumption, and the absence of a scope precluded me from conducting a meaningful accuracy trial.

I was unable to find scope mounts locally for the Zastava, meaning that the Weaver 3-9x40mm scope I purchased with the rifle sat uselessly in its box during the range trip (mounts are currently on order from an online retailer). This was a problem since I am admittedly a poor shot when using basic iron sights like the type that come stock on the M85. I generally do well with scopes and aperture sights such as peeps and ghost rings, but I’m effectively useless with basic irons beyond 50 yards.

Still, I was eager to fire my new rifle and took to the range with a box of Tula, 124 grain jacked hollowpoints and a box of American Eagle, 124 grain full metal jackets. Ammo availability is still a problem at the time of this article’s posting, but I hope to try a wider variety of loads in the near future.

At 50 yards from a bench rest I shot two nearly identical 5-round groups of approximately 2 to 3- inches. Such groups are admittedly mediocre, but are about as well as I’ll do with any rifle that has iron sights.

I’d rather not write about my 100-yard “groups” and I absolutely refuse to submit photographic evidence of their existence. I will say that most of the rounds I fired at least hit the 8×10-inch targets I was using. More practice and less coffee seem to be the lessons here.

Above: 50yard groups through the Zastava M85. The group on the left was printed by the Tula 124 grain hollow point ammo; the group on the right was made with American Eagle 124 grain full metal jacket ammo.

Fit and function

While it would be unfair to judge the rifle’s accuracy potential based on the above test, I was able to take note of the rifle’s mechanical and ergonomic characteristics. In general, I found the rifle comfortable to hold and shoulder. The walnut, Monte-Carlo stock fit me well.

The trigger, while not as smooth and light as one found on a competition-grade instrument, was more than crisp enough for use in the woods, on the farm, or at the gravel pit.

An interesting and much appreciated feature sported by the M85 is a detachable magazine floor plate. Pressing a button located at the front of the trigger guard allows the magazine floor plate to unhinge, meaning the user can quickly and easily unload at the end of a long day afield.

Above: The M85′s detachable magazine floor plate.

The Zastava M85’s action is, unfortunately, less than smooth. If the bolt is not worked just right when ejecting a round, it tends to bind, stick, and require considerable jostling to return forward. I’m hoping that with repeated polishing and break-in from use, the problem will diminish over time.

It should also be noted that extraction of spent, steel cases required substantially more force than the extraction of brass cases. This is of little concern to me as I prefer to buy brass case ammo that can later be reloaded.

The bottom line

Although the Zastava M85 is by no means a perfectly slick machine, I am not one to expect competition level quality from a $450 rifle. If the M85 ultimately always goes off when I need it to, doesn’t break and proves consistently capable of hitting gallon jug sized targets at 50+ yards, I’ll be happy.
(104)

One of the most tedious and least glamorous parts of the whole hunting, fishing, and shooting game is gear maintenance. Though it can be a lot of work and will typically be the last thing a hunter or angler will want to do after a long day in the woods or on the water, it is obviously crucial to the longevity of often expensive equipment. Rust, in particular, is the most ruthless enemy of outdoor equipment, attacking quickly and silently, rotting out fishing equipment and wreaking havoc on the appearance, function, and value of firearms.

Recently, I was sent a sample of a new weapon in the battle against rust; a multi-purpose cleaner, lubricant, and rust remover/preventative called Brownpolymer, which is manufactured by Enjen Joes of Fulton, New York.

Always being eager to try out a new product, I devised a brief series of simple tests, and got to work putting Brownpolymer through the wringer.

Uses

Browpolymer is sold as a multi-purpose lubricant/cleaner that will waterproof metal and wood surfaces, remove rust from metal, reduce friction between metal parts, and will prevent copper and lead fouling inside of rifle and shotgun bores while also increasing muzzle velocity. Additional technical information on the product can be found HERE.

Application

To apply Brownpolymer, simply dab a small amount of the product onto a cotton rag and then vigorously buff it onto a metal or wooden surface. According to product literature, Browploymer must be rubbed to a very thin, invisible, layer as allowing it to remain too thick on the surface of an object will result in the collection of dirt and debris. A very small amount of the product covers a surprisingly extensive amount of surface area. Should Brownpolymer need to be removed, turpentine is the recommended solvent.

Product Trials

A characteristic of the product I appreciated immediately upon opening the jar was the lack of noxious fumes. Many products designed for cleaning and treating outdoor equipment are harsh and unpleasant to work with. Brownpolymer, by contrast, had a pleasing, sweet aroma. I worked with it indoors and never once felt overwhelmed or nauseous.

My first use of Brownpolymer was on my well-worn and battle scarred Remington 870 in 20-guage. I received this gun a gift for my 11th birthday and in the 21 years of its operational life, I’ve used it to bag more game than any of my other guns combined. Inevitably, the gun’s stock bears extensive dings and scratches resulting from countless hard hikes through blackberry brambles and cedar swamps. Some surface rust had also formed on sections of the barrel and receiver, the result of a few periods of a shameful lack of cleaning and proper storage.

Vigorously rubbing Brownpolymer into the 870’s stock diminished the appearance of the scratches and appeared to form a protective coating over areas where the finish had worn off. After treatment with Brownpolymer, a small amount of water dribbled onto the gun’s buttstock beaded up and ran off as though the it had just received a fresh coat of polyurethane finish. Brownpolymer also quickly lifted and removed light surface rust that had begun to form on parts of the barrel.

Above: Water running off the stock of a Remington 870 treated with Brownpolymer.

Upon removing the trigger assembly from the gun, I noticed that minor corrosion had begun to form on the critical parts that comprised the assembly. Application of Brownpolymer quickly removed this rust.

Above: The trigger assembly of the author’s Remington 870 before cleaning with Brownpolymer (left) and after cleaning with Brownpolymer (right).

I also ran a swab of Brownpolymer down the bore of my new Zastava M85. I had previously cleaned the bore using the typically harsh and noxious type of solvent found in most gun cleaning kits. Interestingly, Brownpolymer lifted fouling (presumably deposited during test firing at the factory) from the bore that had been left by the other solvent.

My final test of the product involved a use not specified in its accompanying literature. One of my favorite pairs of hiking boots had become a little too broken in. While this condition makes them exceptionally comfortable during long days afield, it also means they no longer shed water, instead absorbing it with sponge-like efficiency. A brief walk through wet grass results in soaked feet.

It occurred to me that rubbing Brownpolymer into the leather portions of the boots might help to revitalize them, allowing me to wear them for another season or two without having perpetually wet feet. After massaging in some Brownpolymer, water beaded and ran off the boots rather than soaking in.

The Bottom Line

Overall, I was impressed with how efficiently Brownpolymer removed rust fouling from my firearms and with how effectively it repels water. Additionally, I appreciated how a little of the product went a very long way. I used Brownpolymer to treat three firearms and waterproof a pair of boots, and I barely put a dent in the 2-ounce jar I had on hand. I am comfortable recommending Brownpolymer as an addition to any gun room or workshop. (50)

The acquisition of a new firearm is not regular occurrence for me and such an event typically only takes place after a rare windfall or the liquidation of unneeded and unused personal property. It follows that on those exceedingly rare occasions where I can work a new gun into the budget, deciding upon which gun to buy is a tedious, drawn-out, and irritating process fraught with excessive hemming, hawing, and internet research.

When disposable income is limited (and realistically not all that disposable) the inclination is to seek a do-it-all gun or at the very least a multi-purpose gun. In my case, I knew I wanted a light weight, quick handling rifle capable of taking deer at close to medium range that would also be a lot of fun to use to punch paper at the range or plink bits of debris at the local gravel pit. It’s a tall order to fill.

Initially, I had my sights set on a Ruger 77/44, but two factors derailed this plan: cost and availability. I knew that after the addition of a decent scope, sales tax, and possible shipping fees, it was likely that the ultimate price tag for the purchase would be $1,000 or more and thus out of my price range. Additionally, most of Ruger’s fine products are currently back ordered to the fullest possible extent, meaning it was unlikely that I would locate a dealer that had one in stock.

Even though a 77/44 was likely out of the question, I still wanted something that would fill the niche of a mostly fun gun that could take medium game at common woods ranges. Ultimately, I spotted a Zastava M85 in 7.62x39mm on the wall of a local gun shop. Even though the rifle was chambered in a comparatively light round (the 7.62x39mm is ballistically similar to, but not quite as powerful as the venerable .30-30 Win.), it still met most of my requirements: short overall length and light weight, chambered in a deer-capable round that won’t generate enough recoil to make hamburger of my shoulder, and a bolt action for ease of cleaning and maintenance. Additionally, the M85 had a price tag of approximately $450, which was well within my range.

Above: The Zastava M85 (top) is approximately the same size and weight as a Savage Mark II in .22 lr. (bottom).

Admittedly, I had (and still have at the time of this post) a handful of reservations about the M85. For instance, the bolt seems to bind and require a fair amount of jostling to close. Also, my research indicated that the rifle’s extractor is a weak point and is prone to breaking when cycling inexpensive steel cased ammo (the exact kind that most people like to use on water jugs and rotting vegetables). That being said, my research also indicated that the action could be smoothed with a little polishing of the bolt. I’m not that concerned about a potentially weak extractor since the rifle will be relegated to hunting and plinking rather than personal defense. If an extractor breaks, I’ll simply curse, grumble, and order a new one.

Above: a 7.62x39mm round (center) compared to a .270 Win. round (left) and a .308 Win. round (right).

I plan to give the Zastava M85 its initial range trial in a few days. Until then, here are the rifle’s specs.

Make: Zastava Arms of Serbia (Currently imported by Century Arms International)

Model: M85

Chamber: 7.62x39mm (reviewed), .223 Rem., and .22 Hornet

Action: Push Feed Bolt Action

Capacity: 5 + 1

Barrel: 20-inch, blued

Sights: Adjustable iron

Receiver: drilled and tapped to accept a scope mount

Stock: Walnut, Monte-Carlo

Overall Length: 39.8 inches

Weight: 6 lbs.

Additional Notes: Zastava M85s were previously imported by the now defunct Charles Daly firearms and then by Remington from 2006 to 2008 as the Model  799. (96)

I have a confession to make. Even though I have been hunting deer for twenty years, I am really, really bad at it. Part of the reason for this is a personality flaw. To me, waking up at dark-thirty a.m. to go sit still in the cold woods for endless hours hoping a deer happens to wander  within striking distance is more akin to a circle of hell than a fun day out. I typically don’t enjoy doing what is required in order to shoot a deer. I’d love to be able to shoot a deer, but my tolerance for tedium is generally too low to make it happen.

The second reason for my lack of whitetail slaying success is due to my location. I grew up hunting in the woods of northeastern Vermont, where due to typically long and snowy winters, deer populations are generally low. A Northern New England hunter simply isn’t going to see as many deer in a season as his mid-Atlantic or southern state counterparts.

What are often abundant in the woods of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are small game animals such as ruffed grouse (called partridge in New England) and snowshoe hare. What cold, tired, and possibly bored deer hunter wouldn’t love to take home a few birds or bunnies as a consolation prize at the end of a long day of not seeing deer?

The problem with taking small game targets of opportunity while deer hunting is the fact that most deer-capable centerfire cartridges have the potential to turn a small forest critter inside out, leaving no edible meat. While some hunters will keep a rimfire pistol on hand to take small game during a deer hunt, I know that I’m not a good enough handgun shot to make that method work. For me, the solution to game-getting versatility came in the form of the Baikal MP 94 combination rifle/shotgun.

Overview

Manufactured in Russia by Baikal Arms and imported by U.S. Sporting Goods, the MP 94 incorporates both a 12 gauge shotgun barrel and a centerfire rifle barrel in an over/under, double trigger, configuration. The model I ordered consists of a 23.5 inch 12 gauge barrel over a .308 Winchester barrel.  The shotgun barrel is threaded to accept choke tubes and the gun comes with cylinder, improved cylinder, modified and full choke tubes, adding to its versatility. The rate of twist of the .308 barrel is approximately 1:12, which means it should shoot fairly well with middle weight -130 grain to 168 grain – bullets. The gun’s overall length is only 40 inches which will likely make it well suited to the thickly forested terrain I typically hunt. For cleaning and transport, the MP 94 takes down quickly in a manner similar to most over/under shotguns.

Above: The MP94 broken down into its three basic parts

Other versions of the MP 94 pair a 12 gauge barrel with rifle barrels chambered in .223, .30-06., and 7.62x39mm. Additionally, smaller scale models are available that pair a .410 shotgun barrel with barrels chambered for various rimfire rounds.

The gun comes equipped with an integral, 11 millimeter dovetail scope mount as well as one of the most unusual open sights I’ve ever seen.  Windage adjusts by simply turning a screw behind the rear sight blade, but it appears that elevation is adjusts by increasing and decreasing barrel tension via a screw between the barrels. According to the manual, the gun is preset for 100 meter shooting and that it should only be adjusted if necessary. What the manual does not indicate is for what type of ammunition the barrels are preset.

Obviously, I don’t expect the rifle barrel and the shotgun barrel to hit to the same point of aim. My intention is to sight the gun to place the rifle bullets where I need them while keeping the shotgun barrel stoked with a load of birdshot for small game.

First Impressions and Expectations

When the gun arrived at my local gun shop and I was able to look it over for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised. Most of the Russian made guns I had fired in the past were such military surplus rifles as the Mosin-Nagant and SKS which, while functional and accurate enough for the task at hand, were made with no mind paid to fit, finish and aesthetics and effectively gave a big middle finger to ergonomics. Granted, the MP 94 won’t win any beauty contests with its odd duck appearance, but its blued steel and walnut stock fit together seamlessly and the gun shoulders and points naturally. It’s certainly not balanced for wing shooting, but I have no intention of using it to take flying game.

My initial inspection of the gun did yield two areas of concern. First, the triggers are tough. I don’t own a trigger pull gauge so I can’t give numbers, but both the shotgun trigger (front) and rifle trigger (rear) require considerable force to pull. This will likely reduce accuracy to a degree, but I didn’t buy the gun with the expectation of it being a tack-driver. Additionally, I was concerned that the sights (a shallow rear notch and a small front bead) would be difficult to see and line up in low-light conditions.

Above: The MP94′s open sights.

At the range

During my first range trial with gun, my concerns about the triggers and the sights were to a degree validated. Pulling the triggers caused the muscles of my right hand to strain significantly which undoubtedly had an effect on accuracy. Additionally, the sights turned out to be somewhat of a chore to line up, and the tall rear sight blade obscured much of my field of view. With a great deal of practice, I’m sure I could become a crack shot with the gun’s stock sights on a beautiful sunny day, but I’m also sure the sights will be difficult to see in the low light conditions in which deer typically move.

In spite of the triggers and the sights (and an admittedly out of practice operator) the gun printed deer capable groups at 50 yards.

Shot Loads

To see how the MP 94 chucked shot loads, I fired a few rounds of Remington, 1-1/4 ounce  Express size  7-1/2 shot and Remington, 3-inch, (15 pellet) 00 buckshot into sheets of 14×22 inch poster board. At 15 yards through the modified choke tube, the birdshot load yielded a nice even pattern that would make short work of any small game animal that happened to wander in front of my deer stand.

In addition to the birdshot loads, I also patterned a load of 3-inch (15-pellet) Remington 00 buckshot at 25 yards. Through the modified choke, 14 out of 15 pellets hit the poster board and the pattern was irregular and patchy. The buckshot load fared even worse through the full choke tube with only 12 of 15 pellets hitting the target in a pattern that was, once again, irregular. I will likely have to do an extensive search to find a buckshot load that will yield a deer capable pattern at 25 yards or beyond.

Above: the patterns yielded by the MP 94. From left: 1-1/4 ounce #7.5 shot, modified choke, 15 yards; 15-pellet 00 buck, modified choke, 25 yards; 15-pellet 00 buck, full choke, 25 yards.

Single projectile loads

Moving my targets to the 50 yard line, I tried two makes of .308 ammo ( Silver Bear 147 grain FMJ and Remington 150 grain soft points) as well as a few rounds of Remington, 3-inch, one ounce slug loads through the MP 94.

It is somewhat fitting that my Russian-made gun yielded its best group of the day with Russian- made ammo. Employing only the gun’s open sights, I managed to group three shots into 2.5 inches. While such a group won’t win me any medals, it’s certainly small enough to hit the vitals of a deer-sized game animal. The group yielded by the Remington 150 grain load was slightly larger, but this is very likely the result of shooter error.

I was somewhat surprised by how tightly the Remington slug load grouped. At 50 yards, three shots grouped into a horizontal line about 3.5-inches in length. Due to the low velocity of the slugs, the group printed well below the point of aim. The sights are clearly preset for shooting with .308 loads.

Clockwise from top left: 50-yard groups yielded by the Silver Bear, 147 grain, FMJ; Remington 150 grain, soft point; Remington, 3-inch 1-ounce Slugger.

Scopes, slugs, and a rifled choke tube

Several weeks after my initial range session, I obtained the appropriate sized scope mount for the rifle and installed a 2.5-power scope. I also ordered and installed a rifled choke tube from Carlson’s Choke tubes.

The results were 50-yard slug groups that were almost rifle-like in terms of accuracy. The rifled tube enhanced accuracy with all slug loads tested, but the best performance still came from Remington 3-inch 1-ounce Slugger loads. At 50 yards, the scoped MP94 with a rifled tube placed three Slugger’s into one, ragged two-inch group. At 100 yards, the same slugs printed a 3-1/4-inch group which is impressive for a smooth bore shotgun.

Above: The 50 yard group (left) and 100 yard group yielded by the 3-inch 1-ounce Remington Sluggers loads through the MP94 with a rifled choke tube installed.

Unfortunately, the installation of the rifled tube turned out to be a double edged sword. While the tube noticeably improved slug accuracy, it drastically changed the point of impact for the rifle barrel to the point where slugs and .308 bullets no longer struck close enough to each other to land on the same 12-inch by 12-inch target.

Given that with a standard cylinder tube installed, both slugs and bullets landed within the same vital zone sized target at common hunting distances, it is likely that I will l leave the rifled tube behind when pursuing deer. Still, it was interesting to witness how much the installation of a rifled tube can improve slug accuracy.

Conclusion

The MP 94 is clearly capable of doing what I need it to, which is taking all manner of game at common woods ranges. However, I will be making a few improvements to the gun as I can afford them. First and foremost, I need to find a competent gunsmith to improve the triggers. That alone will increase the gun’s accuracy potential. Second, I am going to look into the feasibility of having some kind of peep or ghost ring sight installed. While the addition of a scope did decrease group sizes, the optic changed the profile and balance of the gun in a way I found less than appealing. Even without such changes the MP94 will definitely make a highly versatile woods gun for a variety of purposes.

  (189)

Like many northern New England ice anglers, most of my hard water fishing has historically been done primarily with tip-ups. For those of you completely unfamiliar with ice fishing, a tip-up (often called a trap here in Maine) is essentially a spool of line rigged to a spring loaded flag. The tip-up is placed in a hole in the ice with its spool just below the surface of the water. When a fish grabs the baited hook that is presumably attached to the spool of line, the flag is released alerting the angler of the strike. The fish then must be pulled by hand to the surface.

While this method of icing fish is efficient as well as tried and true, it’s not without its drawbacks. For example, a fish is likely going to pull a lot of line from the spool before the angler even reaches his or her tip-up. As the angler pulls in the fish, this line is probably going to pile up on the ice next to the hole, freezing into an icy rat’s nest that sometimes can’t be untangled. Additionally, and this is just a matter of personal opinion, fighting a fish by way of rod and reel is more fun than hand-lining it in.

The obvious alternative to the tip up is some sort of jigging rod setup, but managing multiple jigging rods can be tricky. An angler may not notice a strike on a jigging rod that is set up 50 feet away.

There are now a variety of products on the market that attempt to bridge the gap between the tip-up and the jigging rod. The two that are the subject of this article are the Arctic Warrior tip-up offered by the Clam Corporation and the Ice Rigger rod tender offered by HT Enterprises. Both devices are designed to connect a standard jigging rod to a spring loaded signal flag in order to allow an angler to simultaneously take advantage of the best qualities of the tip-up and the jigging rod.

What follows is my initial assessment of each device based on how they performed during my first ice fishing trip of the 2012 season.

How it works in theory: the Arctic Warrior

1.

The Arctic Warrior essentially consists of two parts; a collapsible metal base with attached flag and a metal bearing attachment that affixes to a rod handle with two Velcro straps.

 2.

With the reel oriented as pictured above, the metal attachment is placed into the base. To balance the rod in the cradle, move the bearing back and forth along the rod handle until the rig is appropriately balanced. This is best accomplished indoors prior to taking to the ice.

3.

After setting the line at the desired depth, the Arctic Warrior is set by hooking the flag into the metal attachment as pictured above. The device works with the bail of the reel either open or closed. To use the Arctic Warrior with the bail open, run the line through the hooked part of the flag. When a fish takes the bait, the rod rocks downward, releasing the flag.

So far, the weakest point in the design seems to be the metal part that attaches to the rod handle. It will not secure to all rod handles (straight, even handles work best) and the small, metal attachment seems like it would be fairly easy to lose.

How it works in theory: the Ice Rigger

1.

The ice rigger, pictured above, is somewhat easier to set up than the Arctic Warrior and consists of a PVC rod holder, a flag, and quick release clip attached to a Teflon bearing.

2.

To use the device, place the rod into the holder and set the bait to the desired depth. With the bail of the reel open, affix the clip to the line as pictured above. The flag is then set into a notch in the bearing.

3.

When a fish takes the bait, the bearing rolls forward, releasing the flag. The line also pulls free of the clip. The amount of tension require for the line to release from the clip can be increased by moving the line farther back in the clip.

How they worked in practice

I didn’t get a single hit on the Ice Rigger during my recent trip so its effectiveness is yet to be determined.

I did, however, have two hits on the Arctic Warrior setup and so far, it seems to work as advertized. I botched the first strike of the day when I attempted to set the hook without first de-icing the hole. I was a little more patient and managed to land a twelve-inch brook trout.

Overall, I’m so far encouraged by the results. However, there is still some streamlining of the setup to be done. I need to find a way to prevent my reels, rod eyes, and the ice holes themselves from freezing. Keeping the holes free of skim ice is pretty much a full time job on extremely cold days. I have read that applying a few drops of unscented mineral oil to line spools and guides can inhibit freezing, but keeping holes open is going to require some creative thinking. (9)