As is normal for Mac, he leaves very little if anything to argue with!

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by jfm:
I remember seeing those statistics as well. They had to do with the elephant being right on top of you and having to shoot up from beneath the jaw to hit the brain. I also read years ago in a Handloading magazine article that these statistics were not real and that there was never valid data gathered on it. I think this is along the same lines as stating your deer rifle knocked the deer back 10 feet when you shot it. Sorry, but no amount of bullet inertia does this. I don't know what is fact or fiction but I believe very few would have anything but a grim outcome when a 6-7 ton animal is in a position where one had to shoot up from underneath the jaws into the brain for a kill. I also cannot see where a 20 mm canon would be able to blow the elephant away from you so as not to crush you when it fell dead. Although I would like to have the biggest gun I could handle in this unique situation, I still feel this is one of those discussions akin to questioning how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Thanks,

jfm

I don't see you needing a shot that must go up under the jaw to reach the brain. What we are talking about here is a charging elephant. When they charge their head is held low with the tusks just a couple of feet off of the ground. To reach the brain you must shoot them well above eye level. The under the jaw shot would only be necessary if the elephant stopped and was standing over you with you laying on the ground. In that case the odds are that if you hit the brain he will fall on you! Squishhhh!

465H&H

jfm,

Again, I don't think we are disagreeing but to put a finer point on my statement, this is what I said, not just the single statement about the 500 and 375 errant shots:

I don't think the larger caliber is compensation for a poorly placed shot compared to a well placed shot from the 375. However, I do think a larger caliber can sometimes result in more internal damage being done to the vitals of an animal if Mr. Murphy gets involved and the animal turns or takes a step at the last second, etc. This is why guys like Mike Jines have stated that a poorly placed 500NE is better than a poorly placed 375. He isn't saying that in jest. The argument really isn't about a poorly placed 500NE compared to a well placed 375. It's what happens when the shot goes less than desired in the first place, regardless of the caliber. Shooting a smaller caliber rifle is no guarantee that the shot will go off without a hitch, which is what is implied when a hunter states "A well placed 375 is better than a poorly placed 500NE".

quote:

I don't see you needing a shot that must go up under the jaw to reach the brain. What we are talking about here is a charging elephant. When they charge their head is held low with the tusks just a couple of feet off of the ground. To reach the brain you must shoot them well above eye level. The under the jaw shot would only be necessary if the elephant stopped and was standing over you with you laying on the ground. In that case the odds are that if you hit the brain he will fall on you! Squishhhh!

465H&H,

If you read the original article you'll find that this is the situation they are talking about. It is not about a frontal brain shot at 6 yards. It is about having to shoot an elephant that is on top of you where the only way to stop it was to shoot through the underside of the jaw into the brain. This is what the Handloader magazine article was addressing when it stated the data was never gathered nor was it a realistic situation to expect any type of real data to be gathered.

Thanks,

jfm

quote:

This is why guys like Mike Jines have stated that a poorly placed 500NE is better than a poorly placed 375. He isn't saying that in jest.

Todd,
I guess I would have to respectively disagree with that logic. A poorly placed shot with any caliber is a poorly placed shot. Please don't get me wrong. I completely agree that when a DG animal is a few yards or feet away, I'd prefer as big as I can shoot accurately and not a medium bore. The large bores were made specifically for situations like this.

Thanks,

jfm

quote:

Originally posted by jfm:

quote:

This is why guys like Mike Jines have stated that a poorly placed 500NE is better than a poorly placed 375. He isn't saying that in jest.

Todd,
I guess I would have to respectively disagree with that logic. A poorly placed shot with any caliber is a poorly placed shot. Please don't get me wrong. I completely agree that when a DG animal is a few yards or feet away, I'd prefer as big as I can shoot accurately and not a medium bore. The large bores were made specifically for situations like this.

Thanks,

jfm

jfm, I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing here at all. I think a poorly placed shot is a poorly placed shot, no matter the caliber. If I make a poorly placed shot however, which happens from time to time, I would rather it be with the larger caliber especially if it happened on a dangerous game animal at close range.

The point I am making is that some here state the cliche that a well placed shot with a 375 is better than a poorly placed shot with a 500. I agree with that. But the problem is that the statement is made as if it is impossible to make a bad shot with the 375, because it is more manageable. What I'm saying is that certain things such as the animal turning away at the exact time of the shot will result in a poorly placed shot regardless of the caliber used and entirely out of the control of the shooter, barring not taking the shot at all. In this case, I think the larger caliber wound has the potential for being more effective, although still placed poorly, than the smaller caliber wound, being equally poorly placed.

Most of the time when a sentence is singled out for comment and disagreement, the context of the argument is lost. Surely, the single statement that a poorly placed 500NE is better than a poorly placed 375 leaves much to be desired. But when you take into context, that the comparison is being made between two shots that were misplaced by accident or other occurrence, it takes on a different tone. I would rather have a properly placed shot every time I pull the trigger on a game animal and that is exactly what I strive for. However, I have in the past, and will probably do so again, make a poor shot from time to time. When that happens, I want the larger weapon in my hands. It may not make a difference, but then again, it may!

Like I said however, I don't think you and I are disagreeing here.

Well, I guess I really messed up my post. Sorry jfm. I was trying to take a quote out of my post and repost it with bold emphasis but I somehow deleted most of it.

I apologize about that. If anyone captured it and could repost it, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, it wasn't that important anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by jfm:

quote:

I don't see you needing a shot that must go up under the jaw to reach the brain. What we are talking about here is a charging elephant. When they charge their head is held low with the tusks just a couple of feet off of the ground. To reach the brain you must shoot them well above eye level. The under the jaw shot would only be necessary if the elephant stopped and was standing over you with you laying on the ground. In that case the odds are that if you hit the brain he will fall on you! Squishhhh!

465H&H,

If you read the original article you'll find that this is the situation they are talking about. It is not about a frontal brain shot at 6 yards. It is about having to shoot an elephant that is on top of you where the only way to stop it was to shoot through the underside of the jaw into the brain. This is what the Handloader magazine article was addressing when it stated the data was never gathered nor was it a realistic situation to expect any type of real data to be gathered.

Thanks,

jfm

jfm,

I don't know about the article in Handloader that you are talking about as I never read it. But that was not the situation that Ganyana was talking about.

465H&H

465H&H,
The information Ganyana posted sounds an awful lot like the article I read years ago regarding percentages of people surviving after using certain calibers for stopping elephant when the elephant was right on top of you. If it is not that same article, I apologize.
Take care,

jfm

Todd,

Understood. I always thought a statement like "A good shot with this caliber is better than a poor shot with that caliber" was a false dichotomy. Kind of like saying "I'd rather have good food than bad food any old day". (From the movie "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken".) I completely agree that a good shot with a .470 Nitro Express is better than a good shot with a .375 H&H magnum on dangerous game or any other game for that matter. To reiterate my original thought and as Harry Selby says, the .375 H&H magnum is enough gun for elephant.....when they're out at thirty meters or better. When you're in the thick stuff and we're talking a few yards or feet for that matter, I'll be happy with .470 or larger, as long as I can shoot it well. I feel most would agree with that notion.

Thanks,

jfm

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Will, What bullet did you use to cause that amount of damage to the buff heart?
465H&H

300gr Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer Solid

I don't, obviously, have the experience that many of the others on the site have but in the 3 buffalo I have taken, none have been with a .375. 1 witha .416, 1 with a .470 NE and one with a .458 Lott. I wouldn't be afraid to take a .375 on a buffalo hunt just due to my experience with it here in the states. the .416 took 8 shots over 5 hours to kill the buff. The PH had me put the initial shot into the buff at around 160 yards and later told me that we were pressed for time and he knew his tracker would find it to finish off. Needless to say, I wouldn't ever hunt with him again. The second with the .470 took 3 shots. One initially and then when he charged, 2 more to put him down. the 458 lott at 21 yards knocked the buffalo off his feet. I kept shooting as long as he was moving, he didn't go anywhere, but I was too close to quit. They are tough, I have to give them that but I don't believe the .375 would be at a disadvantage with a buffalo. Bullett placement is the Key. Put it where it counts and it will work. I think the velocity and the smaller bullet diameter will penetrate more than the bigger calibers and do as much damage due to hydrostatic shock as the bigger calibers. I shoot the bigger calibers because I have them and I can put the shots where I have to with them. Just my .02

I have no argument with anybodies ideas and I think the 375 is just fine and adquate under all circumstances.

I will just say that cow elephants scare me. When I am chasing them around in thick stuff bigger sure feels better. it goes some thing like this. 37 well ok but next time I'm bringing more rifle ( in a charge situation positively heavy browning of whitey tighties) , 40 more ok but (still solid Hershey skid marks), 45 better (possibly only light brushing of reeses peanut butter cup across said whitey tighties, 577 well that's better yet ( possibility of camp laundry receiving undies in pretty darn good condition with only normal wear and tear. It's all psychology any way.

First of all, I don't think a poorly placed bullets, regardless of caliber, is going to make that much of a difference.

I think this is one of those old wives'tales that seem to refuse to die.

Second, there is no shoulder fired rifle that can stop the momemtum of ANY charging animal bigger than am ouse.

So may be we are onto another one of those old wives's tales now.

seems to me that nothing short of an RPG or LAW is going to change the direction of a dead 5 ton mass sliding forward when it is killed at under 10 yards. best to try to jump out of it's line of travel. i sure are hell don't thing a rifle fired into an elephants head will alter his "death slide" direction.

First of all, I don't think a poorly placed bullet, regardless of caliber, is going to make that much of a difference. I think this is one of those old wives'tales that seem to refuse to die. Second, there is no shoulder fired rifle that can stop the momemtum of ANY charging animal bigger than a mouse. So maybe we are onto another one of those old wives's tales now.
**********************************************
Saeed, thanks for your input. I already know your position on the use of the .375 caliber for dangerous game. I also believe you have taken more dangerous game, especially buffalo, than everyone here combined. At what distance would you draw the line for the use of a large bore caliber on dangerous game?

Thanks,

jfm

Distance is really immaterial, as I don't believe it will make much of a difference what calibe one uses if the CNS is missed.

Using a rifle one is familiar with is infinitely better than one used only occasionaly.

At very close range, I think most of us will not have any time to aim, but shoot in a point-and-shoot shotgun style.

At least that is what I will do.

On the very rare occassions when I had to take a close range shot, I don't think there was time to aim.

Here, again, where one's familiarity woth his rifle comes in handy.

I have always subscribed to the theory that bigger is better, assuming you can actually control and shoot the bigger caliber. My thinking has been that if the shot is perfect, regardless of caliber, you will obviously be fine. I do not dispute that shot placement is critical and a perfect shot with a .375 H&H will be just as effective as a perfect shot with a .500 NE and that more people are likely to be able to shoot a .375 H&H better than a .500 NE. On the other hand, if the shot is not perfect (a fairly frequent occurence on elephant in particular) using a bigger caliber gives you more margin of error. By that I mean that a bigger caliber is more likely to make a marginal shot effective than a smaller caliber, so a shot near the brain is going to inflict more trauma and potentially drive bone into the brain or otherwise cause more pronounced secondary effects than a smaller caliber. Where is the flaw in that thinking?

quote:

Originally posted by jfm:
I remember seeing those statistics as well. They had to do with the elephant being right on top of you and having to shoot up from beneath the jaw to hit the brain. jfm

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I don't see you needing a shot that must go up under the jaw to reach the brain. What we are talking about here is a charging elephant. When they charge their head is held low with the tusks just a couple of feet off of the ground. To reach the brain you must shoot them well above eye level. The under the jaw shot would only be necessary if the elephant stopped and was standing over you with you laying on the ground. In that case the odds are that if you hit the brain he will fall on you! Squishhhh!

465H&H

I think what is happening here is simply a misunderstanding of the phrase “elephant being right on top of you” . jfm is taking that to mean ON TOP OF YOU in the literal sence, when it really means the elephant is so close that a normal shot placement is far more difficult , and there will be only time to make one shot that has to do the trick. 465H&H, however is reading the phrase correctly.

In that case the chances of getting into the CNS or causing a turn are far better with a larger bore cartridge. The type of rifle is unimportant at that point, because one shot is all you will get if it doesn’t kill or turn the bull .

At six yards with an on-coming elephant, even if your shot kills the elephant outright, you may still be killed by the tusks or trunk hitting, or the forward momentum leaving you under the elephant’s head. In either case you will most likely die!

............................................................

Well, I could have sworn that I remember seeing the line "where one may have to shoot up through the under side of the jaw into the brain". It's not as though I've never been wrong though. I'll try to find that damned article and post it if possible. Otherwise, I feel pretty comfortable with what everyone is saying. Especially that the CNS has to be hit for a reliable stop.

Thank you all,

jfm

Shot placement is paramount - it trumps all else. I recently killed an elephant with one shot between the eyes with a .375 AI, using 300 Failsafe bullets. The elephant was dead before it hit the ground. I killed a Cape buffalo bull with one shot throught the heart with the same load - he died wihin 15 seconds and within 5 yds of where I hit him. Both, perfect shot placement and quick clean kills.

BUT, the one "bigger-is-better" argument that may have validity relates to the brush-bucking qualities of the bullets; and, there are PHs out there who believe that heavier bullets - 400 to 500 gr range - are more effective in getting through the brush without deflection and allowing accurate shot placement to occur.

All bullets can deflect, no matter how big, but the greater momentum of the larger bullets seems to limit deflection. I believe this makes sense. Thus, if you have to root-out a buffalo or elephant shooting through brush, you're likely better off with the bigger bore calibers and larger heavy-for-caliber bullets.

Regards, AIU

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have always subscribed to the theory that bigger is better, assuming you can actually control and shoot the bigger caliber. My thinking has been that if the shot is perfect, regardless of caliber, you will obviously be fine. I do not dispute that shot placement is critical and a perfect shot with a .375 H&H will be just as effective as a perfect shot with a .500 NE and that more people are likely to be able to shoot a .375 H&H better than a .500 NE. On the other hand, if the shot is not perfect (a fairly frequent occurence on elephant in particular) using a bigger caliber gives you more margin of error. By that I mean that a bigger caliber is more likely to make a marginal shot effective than a smaller caliber, so a shot near the brain is going to inflict more trauma and potentially drive bone into the brain or otherwise cause more pronounced secondary effects than a smaller caliber. Where is the flaw in that thinking?

I see no flaw whatsoever and hold the same views.

I would add that, on non-CNS but vital hits, larger caliber bullets driven at higher than NE velocities (at least 2,400 to 2,500 fps) will generally incapacitate and kill more quickly.

I lost my first elephant from a misplaced frontal brain shot and determined that he was knocked down and immediately sprang up that a 470NE MIGHT have kept him down long enough for a better shot. So I bought a 470 for my next one. He was a side lung/heart shot and what do you know the 470 didn't knock him over on his side and didn't slow him down at all. I did get another shot in and when he stopped for an instant i had reloaded and put 2 more in him. He still mwent about 50 yards so for the next one I used a 416 Rigby again for a heart/lung shot and he didn't go down immediately either but was well hit. Would I use a 375 again on Elephant,probably not as long as I have my 416 Rigby. Do I think I could kill an Elephant with a 375H&H. Absolutely with no reservations. In all cases the performance of the cartridge was not the problem,but the shooter was.

quote:

Originally posted by jfm:
Well, I could have sworn that I remember seeing the line "where one may have to shoot up through the under side of the jaw into the brain". It's not as though I've never been wrong though. I'll try to find that damned article and post it if possible. Otherwise, I feel pretty comfortable with what everyone is saying. Especially that the CNS has to be hit for a reliable stop.

Thank you all,

jfm

jfm, I'm not saying you are wrong about the article,I haven't seen that but what I was refering to, is the posts here in this thread! The article may well have said what you thought.

I'm sure there have been others but the only one I know of who survived shooting an elephant frm under him was a booking agent who posts here, and he was just lucky, and it wouldn't have mattered what he was shooting. The falling on top of him would be the problem.
......................................

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
I lost my first elephant from a misplaced frontal brain shot and determined that he was knocked down and immediately sprang up that a 470NE MIGHT have kept him down long enough for a better shot. So I bought a 470 for my next one. He was a side lung/heart shot and what do you know the 470 didn't knock him over on his side and didn't slow him down at all. I did get another shot in and when he stopped for an instant i had reloaded and put 2 more in him. He still mwent about 50 yards so for the next one I used a 416 Rigby again for a heart/lung shot and he didn't go down immediately either but was well hit. Would I use a 375 again on Elephant,probably not as long as I have my 416 Rigby. Do I think I could kill an Elephant with a 375H&H. Absolutely with no reservations. In all cases the performance of the cartridge was not the problem,but the shooter was.

Zim,If I understand you post above correctly, you expected a herat/lung shot to knock him over? That shot is not likely to ever knock an elephant over no matter what rifle or chambering you are useing! The only thing that will knock an elephant over is a centeral nervous system shot, or heavy shot very near the brain, and that near to the brain shot may not do it then if not close enough.

No chambering,no matter how large, will "knock over" an elephant unless the CNS is hit, or afront leg bone is broken.

That was a little attempt at facetious humor that obviously failed if you think I thought a 470 would push over several tons of elephant. But from all the thousands of lines I have read on these and other forums it seems the common belief is that a cartridge of over 45 calibre will stop an Elephant cold in his tracks and probably push him back. I don't subscribe to this belief and believe as most truly knowledgable shooters would that the proper bullet placed in the proper spot will kill anything alive. Period. I do believe that on a brain shot attempt you are allowed a little and I do mean LITTLE larger margin of error with the larger calibres.

I don't think you kill large animals with "hydrostatic shock."

Consider that shooting a white tail with only a .22 delivers about 1 foot pound of energy for every pound of animal. Shooting a Cape buffalo with a .458 delivers about 3 foot pounds for each pound of animal, which is about like shooting the white tail with a 45 Colt, and shooting an elephant with a .458 delivers only about 0.4 foot pounds per pound of animal, less than a .22 on a deer.

You kill large game, IMO, by making holes in vital parts of it, which means you have to penetrate to where they are. A .458 may shatter a bone that a .375 would only penetrate, or just maybe stun better with a near miss. I think the difference is slight. Penetration is good in either case. All I know is that I can shoot a .375 more accurately in the field.

There is a slight difference between sitting at a desk and writing all sorts of wild "facts" about hunting.

I call them after one of my old favorite gun writers, Elmer Keith.

I enjoyed his writing, but that man would twist anything to make it sound as if any animal shot with anything less than a 50 caliber is not going to die.

One day I shot an impala. He was feeding about 50 yards away from us. He was facing us, and the 300 grain bullet, travelling at 2850 fps from the muzzle, generating a little bit more than 5,400 foot pounds of energy, hit him at the junction of the neck and shoulder. It penetrated his whole body, and stopped just under the skin next to his tail in his rear leg.

He seemed to flinch at teh shot. He did not run or move at first, just walked slowly as if he had a bad front leg. He walked a few yards, then stood fora bit, then lay down, and slowly died.

Now, for all intent and purposes, that impala should have been flung 10 feet in the air, and carried back a few yards too.

How come an animal that is about 120 pounds, can absorb over 5,000 pounds of energy, and not move?

From another thread......

In my fifty five years of professional hunting my respect for the .375 H&H cartridge has increased each time I saw it used. In my opinion the greatest cartridge ever developed. I would prefer to see a visiting hunter arrive for his safari with such a rifle than with a double of any caliber. Good luck on your hunt.

Harry Selby

Original Thread

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
All I know is that I can shoot a .375 more accurately in the field.

And many can shoot a 7X57 more accurately in the field than a 375, so why not just use that? Bell killed 1,000 elephants with it so we KNOW it's adequate right? Why would anyone use a larger weapon? Are there some instances where the 375 provides a better "margin for error" than the 7mm, such as in a charge situation? According to some here, the answer is no. Some have stated that a larger caliber weapon makes no difference under any circumstances. So why not just use the 7mm?

Sure, there is the line about the 375 being the legal minimum but lets talk about what is absolutely adequate here, not what is required by law. Wasn't there a period in the 80's where several countries mandated .40 caliber or larger be required on DG? What I'm driving at is it appears many have assigned a "magic" quality to the 375 that ascribes to the theory that anything larger is not needed, but anything less is inadequate. I submit that this is borne out of the legal status of the 375 for DG more than actual effectiveness. After all, many think the "magic" cutoff is actually 9.3mm instead of 375. As I mentioned earlier, Bell's magic caliber was 7mm and for a time, some African countries thought it was .40. What is the specific argument that states a properly placed 7mm bullet is less effective than a properly placed 375 yet a properly placed 375 is just as good as a properly placed .458? Again, Bell PROVED it 1,000 times; a 7mm in the right place on Elephant is adequate.

You may very well be personally limited by recoil to the 375, but that doesn't mean everyone is. There are some on this forum that shoot weapons like the 577NE and larger with great accuracy and proficiency. Some have things like the 12 gage From Hell, and are proficient with it. For me, my current limit is the 500NE but because that is my limit, I don't profess that others can't possibly handle a 600OK better than I can shoot my 500NE!

Will a properly placed 375 kill anything on this planet. Of course it will. But to claim that there are no situations where a larger caliber is more suitable is just plain false. Otherwise, all the PH's would be using 375's, or even 7mm's, instead of "Stopper" rounds, right?

You don't think that many PHs use those big cannons to make the client feel more safe?

quote:

Originally posted by Norwegianwoods:
You don't think that many PHs use those big cannons to make the client feel more safe?

You will probably find that those PHs only use their backup rifles when a client is using a rifle that is too big for him to handle.

Through all my years of hunting, using the lowly 375, I have never been in a situation where my PH had to save my skin.

Saeed, it helps that you load your "lowly" .375 with stout, 300 grain monometal bullets at 2,700-2,900 fps, don't you think?

Mike,

At the closer distances most animals are shot, I really do not think that my rifle has any advantage over the good old 375H&H.

I have been hunting dangerous game now for 20 years. I guide +- 20 Buffalo, 8 Elephant, 5 Leopard, 3-5 Lion and many Hippo every year and when ever a client arrives with a .375H&H I smile a happy smile.
When they unpack anything in .40 caliber I smile, When they offload anything bigger, I immediately give my chief tracker a .375H&H to carry with him.

My late father was a culling officer in the Kruger National Park and culled thousands of Jumbo. He once showed me just why a .375H&H is such a formidable weapon.
He told me that even if you miss your initial target (heaven forbids) then it has so much penetration that it will go on and destroy another vital organ behind like a kidney or spine etc. That is something that the big guns can not do.
Everyone is concerned about the "charge". That happens 99% of the time because your first shot was misplaced and now you want to hit an even smaller target while the animal is moving.
What happens more often is that the animal will turn and run. Shoot at it with a .375 and you will get the bullet to the front of the animal where it can do its job. The big guns just do not have that.
I myself have a .500 Double that is slowly gathering dust because I use my .416Rem for just about everything. If I have my .375 in my hands I shall do any job required because I practice marksmanship in field conditions every week.
Just my humble opinion.

*PS. I love the big guns just because they feel great when I shoot them. Not because they have one or the other advantage that you need because of bad shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
I don't think you kill large animals with "hydrostatic shock."

Consider that shooting a white tail with only a .22 delivers about 1 foot pound of energy for every pound of animal. Shooting a Cape buffalo with a .458 delivers about 3 foot pounds for each pound of animal, which is about like shooting the white tail with a 45 Colt, and shooting an elephant with a .458 delivers only about 0.4 foot pounds per pound of animal, less than a .22 on a deer.

You kill large game, IMO, by making holes in vital parts of it, which means you have to penetrate to where they are. A .458 may shatter a bone that a .375 would only penetrate, or just maybe stun better with a near miss. I think the difference is slight. Penetration is good in either case. All I know is that I can shoot a .375 more accurately in the field.

I think the above post is a very well thought out case for the larger chamberings within reason. It is true that ver large animals are not as
suceptable to hydroshock as smaller animals with a, ahot just any old place, simply as stated above the bullets shock wave has the spread over less area when compared to a smaller animal. The phenomenon called hydrostatic shock is the sudden movement of body fluids that are reluctant to move but wne they do suddenly thet destroy vital blood vessels and drive blood back wards up vains and arteries destroying the check valves that cause dirrectional flow. In the case of the heart, it makes the heart inoperable, and permits heavy internal dumping of blood. In some cases the smaller and faster the bullet is traveling combined with rappid expansion, does a far more damaged area compared to the size of the animal being shot.

With a very large animal that same bullet has to come closer to that vital organ to have lethal effect,so in the case of very large animals one has to make a bigger hole and heary bullet induce heavy momentum so it can shatter large bone, and plow through tuffer skin to do damage enough to put the large animal down quickly. Hydrostatic shock plays a part in any bullets performance but just less in a large tuff animal.

Certainly a heavier bullet will plow through more resistant tissue with the same amount of expansion relitive to it's diameter than a smaller bullet, and with non-expanding bullets the difference still applies. I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that the size and weight of the bullet being heavier is not harder to stop than a lighter bullet traveling through the same tissue.

This is not to say smaller bullets do not kill large animals well , but they have to get simply closer to the vital organ in large animals to do the same damage. So both have thier place in hunting, but both have limitations that are different from one another.

.....................................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Fritz Rabe:
I have been hunting dangerous game now for 20 years. I guide +- 20 Buffalo, 8 Elephant, 5 Leopard, 3-5 Lion and many Hippo every year and when ever a client arrives with a .375H&H I smile a happy smile.
When they unpack anything in .40 caliber I smile, When they offload anything bigger, I immediately give my chief tracker a .375H&H to carry with him.

You are painting with a pretty broad brush there. I'm sure that you have smiled the happy smile as well a few times after the obligatory range session prior to the Safari when you realized that your client can actually shoot a 500NE! You will find quite a few guys on this forum that are not recoil limited to the 375.

Check out some of the posts and hunt reports by guys like CCMDoc, MJines, Robgunbuilder, Michael458. I think you would be "happy" to guide them on a Safari with their "Big Bores". Also, check out the Terminal Bullet Thread. You'll find some pretty impressive penetration with ultra big bores like the 577NE shooting the CEB BBW#13 compared to the old round nose bullets.

Just saying, that's a pretty broad brush!

Again for all those who believe the 375 is the end all, be all weapon, with no need for anything larger under any circumstance, can you please show me a linear, straight line logical argument from point A to B to C where: A) = any weapon smaller than a 375 is inadequate on DG, B) = a 375 is adequate on all DG under any and all circumstances, and C) = anything larger than a 375 is NEVER needed on DG under any circumstances. Bell proved the 7mm would kill Elephant 1,000 times. With this track record, why is no one espousing the idea that the 7mm is all that is needed to hunt DG? Is there something about the 375 that has caused most of the African countries to adopt it as the minimum legal caliber allowed for DG when we know a 7mm will get the job done? If so, there must be something to the argument that a larger caliber weapon has advantages over a smaller caliber weapon under certain circumstances.

It all boils down to, to each his own. For me, I do not want to be standing within twenty paces of an elephant with his head down and ears pinned back holding a .375 H&H. I have a lot more confidence with a little more caliber.

quote:

Bell proved the 7mm would kill Elephant 1,000 times.

Indeed, and he also had the heavy artillery within easy reach when he botched a shot (which he did from time to time - I guess nobody's perfect - not even Bell)

Fine thread, and I thank all of you.

To me, though, the subject is largely academic since with anything at all beyond a .375/300g I start to flinch. Bet I'm not the only one, either.

Finn Aagaard wrote, I believe correctly, that game animals do not die of "shock," they die of blood loss. As Saeed rightly points out, A CNS hit "stops" ANY animal...but not its momentum.


Good hunting.