I have always preferred being over-gunned rather than under-gunned and have also been critical of people who use
inadequate calibres to shoot larger animals.

I have been wondering lately though, what is "enough gun".

To try and figure this out in a practical sense, I have tackled the question as below.

The 500 Jeffery launching a 570 gr solid will reliably kill any elephant that has walked this earth at 50m.

Under ideal conditions (e.g. broadside heart/lung or side brain shot) one could even argue that a 500 Jeffery is excessive
as a .375 H&H Magnum could do the same if shot placement is correct.

The 500 Jeffery will launch a 570 gr solid with a muzzle velocity of 2,200 fps and the bullet will be travelling at about 2,092 fps at 50m.
At this distance the energy transferred will be 5,541 ft-lb (7,512.59 joules).
A *very* big elephant bull will weigh about 6,800 kg. If you do the maths
it works out to 1.10 joules/kg. (7,512.59 J/6,800 kg)

If you takes this and you multiply it back out to kg for e.g. an eland bull which may weigh a ton, you end up with
1,100 joules (1.10 * 1,000 = 1,100) and hence may deduce that 1,100 joules of energy will reliably kill and eland bull if shot placement is correct
and bullet construction is adequate (i.e. premium bullets are used)

Stop me if I am wrong.

Now go and have a look at the ballistics tables...
A PMP .270 Winchester 150 grain (mv 2,756 fps) bullet at 200 m will be travelling at 2,266 fps and will transfer 2,234 joules of energy.

If my calculations & deduction above are correct, this is twice the amount of energy that will reliably kill a big eland bull.

I realise tha what I am suggesting is that shooting an eland bull at 200m with a .270 is more than equivalent to shooting an elephant at 50m
with a 500 Jeffery. t seems crazy, I know.

Doing the same calculation for the following animals reveals some interesting figures;

Plains zebra stallion (340kg) -> 374 joules
Kudu bull (315kg) -> 346.5 joules
Blue wildebeest bull (260kg) -> 286 joules
Gemsbok bull - (240kg) -> 264 joules
Black wildebeest bull (193kg) -> 212.3 joules
Red hartebeest bull (160kg) -> 176 joules
Warthog boar (114kg) -> 125.4 joules
Blesbok ram (85kg) -> 93.5 joules
Impala ram (75kg) -> 82.5 joules

To give you an idea of how the above relates to bullet energy, consider the following (from PMP ballistic tables, I am too lazy to do the calculations);

223 Rem 55gr with mv of 3215 fps (1711 J), 200 m = 2297 fps (817 J)
243 Win 100gr with mv of 2953 fps (2624 J), 200m = 2424 fps (1698 J)
30-06 Spr 180gr with mv of 2625 fps (3732 J), 200m = 2159 fps (2426 J)

Have I missed something here?

If the above is relative then I/we seriously underestimate how powerful a small or medium bore firearm is. I am not trying to advocate tha twe use smaller
rifle calibres to shoot bigger animals and personally I would not be keen to shoot an Eland bull with a .270 at 200m but it seems that
(with excellent shot placement and a premium bulet) it can be done and the .270 is well up to the task.

Let the debate begin...

You have obviously put a lot of thought into this and it is interesting. However in my humble opinion it is penetration and subsequently destruction of a vital organ that kills and not energy. Some of those small bullets may have the energy "in flight" but it disipates very quickly when it meets the resistance of flesh and bone. Big heavy bullets with a good SD maintain that energy while meeting resitance and that is what makes them succesful

quote:

Originally posted by Scott Maynard:
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this and it is interesting. However in my humble opinion it is penetration and subsequently destruction of a vital organ that kills and not energy. Some of those small bullets may have the energy "in flight" but it disipates very quickly when it meets the resistance of flesh and bone. Big heavy bullets with a good SD maintain that energy while meeting resitance and that is what makes them succesful

I agree 100% that it is the bulet that does the killing and what is required is a bullet that will perform and not disintegrate. However, surely it is the energy with which that bullet strikes that will power it to the job?

Also bear in mind that the example on which I have based my argument makes use of almost the maximum energy you can get from a small arm and is worked down from there, hence the energy requirements (which drive the bullet to do its job) are in no way minimum figures.

I still think bigger is better but I have definitely underestimated what an "average" rifle is capable of.

I am happy to be proven wrong here.

It does not take much to kill an animal if you hit it in the right place.

And as mentioned above, destruction of a vital organ that kills an animal, not energy.

I have killed an eland bull at over 500 meters with a 270. And I have killed an elephant at 50 meters with a 375, and a cape buffalo at over 300 meters with a 375.

One of the most rediculous theories in print is the Taylor Knockout Value.

Mr. Taylor forgot to take into consideration how different animals feel when hit in different parts of their anatomy.

quote:

One of the most rediculous theories in print is the Taylor Knockout Value.

Saeed,

Maybe in your old age you will finally come to realize the fallacy of your misguided and ill-conceived notions about my hero John Taylor.

There is also a something called the 'Thornily relative stopping power' somethingerother.

It's kinda fun, if you like comparing cartridges.

quote:

Just how much is "enough" gun?

There is no such thing, I would shoot a buff with an RPG if I could get my hands on one, it adds to the entertainment value. C'mon guys, ya'll gotta get mad at these animals!

Look, on a buffalo hunt I would opt for the biggest possible calibre every time.

When one reads a lot of various articles on this kind of thing (as I do), you start to believe some writers who say that a .270 Win is barely adequate for a kudu bull.

But if you can do your bit and place the bullet on target the .270 will do it's bit.

This whole exercise just brought things back into perspective for me.

It's not energy.

It's not momentum.

It's not penetration.

It's not bullet construction.

It's not His Majesty John Taylor.

It's just voodoo. Voodoo, I say.

Apart from having a little too much time on your hands allowing you to set around and think up such stuff, in my opinion there is no such thing as "Enough Gun".

The question should be, is there "Enough Shooter" in the person holding the gun.

This is all just my opinion, and I have never hunted africa, probably never will, but I have seen this same issue fought over here in the states.

I mean go down to the Small Calibers topic area and look at the several pages of BS that has been tossed around about using a 223/224 caliber rifle for derr here in the states.

Do I think it is enough gun, No, do I see lots of deer killed with those small calibers annually Hell Yes.

As others have said it is a case of bullet placement first, and bullet quality/stability to do the job it was sent to do, second.

I too am a firm believe in useing larger calibers, simply because I have been in enough hunting situations where the only shot offered was way less than perfect.

Many folks either are luckier than me, and always get perfect broadside shots, are of stronger moral fiber and will pass up the questionable shots waiting for a better situation.

Me, I am a greedy bastard, and if I am out there trying to kill something, that is what I fully intend on doing, even if it means taking a shot to break the animal down, get it off its feet and then do a finisher at close range.

You original post is quite interesting and well thought out, but in the end, it all boils down to human/operator error or judgement.

Some folks work within their abilities, both personal and with their equipment at all times, others live in a world of constant envelope pushing.

It happens on both sides of the caliber issue.

I happen to believe that if a 243 will kill a deer, and a 30-06 will do an even better job, than for me, the 375 H&H is just about perfect, although I have killed a couple with a 458 Win Mag.

On the other side are the folks that feel that if a 30-06 is okay, and a 243 will work, then a 223 is just about the best.

The other side of the arguement, well not arguement comes from the fact that from time to time goverments have gotten involved and passed regulations, stating what is "Enough Gun" for the animals that are under their jurisdiction.

It should be up to the individual hunter to decide what is "Enough Gun" for their indivdual level of ability and experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

It's just voodoo. Voodoo, I say.

No, it's juju.

Now that is taking a stand!

Stopping Power is whatever you want it to be. Five plus five is thirteen if you want it to be.

There is no right or wrong. There are no winners or losers. If your rifle has a great measure of self-esteem then that is all that matters.

My stopping rifle is a product of something, maybe affirmative action. No, no. A product of diversity.

May the Stopping Power be with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

quote:

One of the most rediculous theories in print is the Taylor Knockout Value.

Saeed,

Maybe in your old age you will finally come to realize the fallacy of your misguided and ill-conceived notions about my hero John Taylor.

I thought he was your father?

Cannot your father also be your hero?

quote:

If your rifle has a great measure of self-esteem then that is all that matters.

Classic stuff Will.

funny thread it is..

Just think it...a heavy arrow shot from a longbow , doing some approx 60Ft/Ibs, can kill what several 1000s Ft/Ibs of riflebullet can`t. Thats WooJu

quote:

Originally posted by Scott Maynard:
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this and it is interesting. However in my humble opinion it is penetration and subsequently destruction of a vital organ that kills and not energy. Some of those small bullets may have the energy "in flight" but it disipates very quickly when it meets the resistance of flesh and bone. Big heavy bullets with a good SD maintain that energy while meeting resitance and that is what makes them succesful

Absolutely!

A heavy for volume object is harder to stop once it gets rolling than a light object for volume at even higher speed, assuming both hold together (Quality controlled volume).

A 1947 Buick (4000 pounds) hits a brick wall at 60 MPH it goes through the wall, and maybe a couple more walls before it stops! A Volkswagen bug (1800 pounds) hits that same wall, at the same or higher speed, and is crushed, and stops without penetrating the wall. The lighter an object is, the faster it scrubs off speed when it meats resistance.

We all know that the rules in most African countries are Bullet dia + FPE is the measure used to quality a particular cartridge for certain game. Everyone has been aware of the fact that FPE doesn't transfer to killing power, but a combination of speed + Bullet dia + construction of the bullet+ shape of the bullet + momentum, and as important as all that is bullet placement.

A big heavy bullet, properly constructed to maintain weight, traveling at a speed that will give the projectile momentum enough to penetrate deeply in a straight line to reach as many vital organs, and bones as is possible, is what is needed to be a reliable killer or stopper of large animals.

IMO, too many people depend on one or the other of these things, and forget the rest. You know the common old saw "WELL IT SHOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!" but my question is, what did it hit, and how much tissue damage did it do on the way through?

I think you are leaving out a couple of important differences between the small and large animal.

Firstly, let's come from the other direction. The combination of a 308 with 150 grain bullet and a 200 pound animal is very common. To equal that on a 12,000 pound elephant would mean having a bullet that weighed 9000 grains at about 2800 f/s.

A 150 grain 308 scaled up to a 1.25" bore would give a bullet of just over 10000 grains. Such a bullet would have a sectional density equal to a 610 grain 30 calibre.

However, the small animal will always need a much powerful rifle in relation to its size than the large animal and for a couple of basic reasons.

The first reason is the small animal can carry on with a much greater degree of injury in relation to its size, a result of scaling. The second reason is by definition it is much harder to hit the vital spots on a small amimal.

The smaller animal has a much stronger skeleton and muscles in relation to its size. If you make an animal 3 times bigger all over, that is scale it up 3 times then you increase its weight by 27 times but the strength of muscles and bones is only increased 9 times.

A 900 grain 600 Nitro at 1950 f/s on a 12,000 pound animal is like shooting a 200 pound animal with a 15 grain bullet at 1950 f/s or on 20 pound animal it is like a 1.5 grain bullet at 1950 f/s

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
It does not take much to kill an animal if you hit it in the right place.

And as mentioned above, destruction of a vital organ that kills an animal, not energy.

I have killed an eland bull at over 500 meters with a 270. And I have killed an elephant at 50 meters with a 375, and a cape buffalo at over 300 meters with a 375.

One of the most rediculous theories in print is the Taylor Knockout Value.

Mr. Taylor forgot to take into consideration how different animals feel when hit in different parts of their anatomy.

Saeed,

Taylor explicitly limited his knockout values table to head shots on elephant. He stated that energy may be a better predictor of killing power on body shots.

465H&H

This is interesting stuff!

I think Mike Mcguire might be onto something with the 'scaling' concept....

Now if a graph or math-table could be made from the concept...

Of course, it all depends on whether you are using flat nose monolithic solids instead of traditional round nose solids!

Sorry, could not resist.

RCG

I'm waiting for the .223 to be introduced any second....

"How much is enough gun" is a defined by a direct relationship between how how many bullets the animal has absorbed and how quickly it is closing on you.

Elephants have been killed with a .22

M1A1 comes to mind as "enough" if one is in the path of a charging, mad, and close ele.

Patience, Patience ! The first shot is so critical in all hunting scenarios. A 338 is better than a 270 for elk but you take your time and put a good 130 premium bullet into the boiler room and game over.
Same with any animal; A 416 is better than a 338 for say a cape buffalo. Give me a 250 partition in a 338 and a steady hold and I will bet you I can have that bull down in 10 minutes or less if I take my time and place my shot.
Now if you startle something and have to act quickly in a self preservation type scenario that is different. Or pulling a close sneak on a Ele when he knows you are there.
My preference has always pulling the trigger when my quarry is unaware I am there.
Years of archery hunting has taught me to be a better firearms hunter.


EZ

Where are all the 45-70 shooters?

The plan is not to pick the minimum cartridge power level to kill something if everything is optimized...

The plan is to kill everything in the worst possible scenario. That includes charging DG at ten feet if necessary.

Somehow the superiority of using some piddly-ass cartridge and occupying the top tier in Heaven as a result of that choice still comes out: not enough gun, you're dead! dead! dead! And the carcass was not recognizeable.
Closed coffin funerals are the most depressing to attend.

Rich
"Use Enough Gun"...who said that

eezridr,

You my be, but that Buff will have you down in 30 seconds if you try that stunt. They use a medium sized sponge in a sandwich-size ziplock baggie as a casket for people who try that all the time.
Wanna screw around, shoot Prairie Dogs with an air rifle.

Just my humble opinion, having seen and hunted Cape Buffalo.

Rich

Idaho Sharpshooter:

"Where are all the 45-70 shooters?", you ask. What are you trying to do, start a 200 poster thread?

A South African gunwriter puts it very well: "It is not so much what a cartridge can do, but what it can be RELIED upon to do."

Some interesting perspectives...which is what I was looking for.

I have been doing further reading on the matter and realise that eergy is important but momentum may be more so.

One of the better perspectives on this subject is here The Killing Power of Centerfire Hunting Rifles

Idaho Sharpshooter,

I have not graduated to prairie dogs with my air rifle; just fox squirrels for now.
My point is you make up for allot with hitting the animal where you aim and knowing its anatomy.
A old friend of my fathers went to Africa 1/2 dozen times in the 60's and only took a 338. He shot everything with it including numerous cape buffalo. He was in great shape, had ice water running in his veins and was a very good shot.
On a Elk hunt I was on (archery) in September a elderly gentleman was in our camp and had shot 5 cape buffalo with a bow and two Elephant.
I asked him about the buffalo and he said they would just wait 3 hours before following up on them but stressed that he had a PH with a big gun (just in case).
All my life (52 years) I have heard how tough some animals are but have seldom found that to be the case. Pigs are an example. The shoulders are "bullet proof". I shoot them with 223-45/70.No issue; I would shoot them with a 22LR if it was all I had.
You have 100% more experience than I on Cape Buffalo so I have absolutely no grounds to debate your position.
I hope to have the chance in 2011 but I have all these big guns and I need to use them on something so I will probably take a 416 Rem or a 470 double for the fun of it. I will use my 338 for everything else.

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by umshiniwam:
I have been wondering lately though, what is "enough gun".

. . . any caliber that is designated .5XX.

EZ,

you make my point with the part about shooting them with a bow&arrow and then "...waiting for three hours..." to go see how the shot went.
Borders on cruelty to a game animal, IMHO.

Beware! Personal Opinion Here:

I do not think you should be allowed to have anyone with firearms within ten miles of a bow hunter, anywhere while you are hunting; especially not DG in Africa. After all, the idea is to show everybody what a monster "set" you have, and your skills as a hunter with a bow and arrow isn't it? Did your friend say how many of his game animals harvested required the "pay the insurance" shot or two, or three? I have hunted with a longbow and cedar, now Sitka Spruce, arrows with real feathers for more than thirty years. Never took a firearm along until we got the wolves back.

Rich
I kill them myself, on the spot. NO tracking or other assistance required.

Rich,

The gentleman in question, I believe only bow hunted. Many archers believe their method of hunting is about as effecient as those of that hunt with a firearm. As you may well know since you too bow hunt that many times if you get a pass through on your quarry, they seem to act as though it is little more than a bee sting. If you do not push them they are more likely to expire far quicker.
I, like you believe in quick humane kills maybe except pigs???
You can typically see how many arrows were required to harvest an animal by taking a glimpse at their quiver when pics are taken. I know of few archers that leave to hunt without their quiver full.
The issue with hunting DG with archery equipment is the speed of the follow up and its immediate effect or lack of "in a pinch".

Now,this is "Enough Gun":

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
eezridr,

You my be, but that Buff will have you down in 30 seconds if you try that stunt. They use a medium sized sponge in a sandwich-size ziplock baggie as a casket for people who try that all the time.
Wanna screw around, shoot Prairie Dogs with an air rifle.

Just my humble opinion, having seen and hunted Cape Buffalo.

Rich

I guess you don't believe a 338 can cleanly kill a buffalo?

Knowing what a 300gr .375 will do at 2500 fps I would have no trouble using a 338 with a good 250gr.

Heck, if they let me shoot them for free with the agreement that I had to use a 30-06 I would be happy to do so. Pass me the 220 grainers!

Jason,

I'd help bankroll that, if you stipulate that there will be no backup firearms allowed bigger than a 25 auto. FMJ is okay.

The heart of the debate here seems to center around best case scenario VS worst case scenario. IMHO, it's not what your .___ can do if everything is optimal (after all, we have over 3/4 of a century of documented use of the 22 Hornet by eskimos on Polar Bear) but if everything is a worst case scenario.

Shoot the Buff at 100yds in savannah, easy with a host of cartridges. Shoot the Buff at 10 yards in the tall grass and he bounces back up headed for you, then hear this ear shattering snort as his cousin Mogambo comes out of the grass ten yards to your left at flank speed. My vote is (minimum) my 450 Dakota with a 500gr solid at 2400fps or better yet; my 505 Gibbs with 535gr Woodleigh solids at about the same speed. Big(ger) Bore Rifles just hit a lot harder, and turn "almost" into good enough to give you time to get the second shot off.

It's something you have hunted DG, and seen them close up; and you understand; or you haven't and you might not. DG will kill you, in a heartbeat, and make a mess out of the remains.

Rich

quote:

Buff at 10 yards in the tall grass and he bounces back up headed for you, then hear this ear shattering snort as his cousin Mogambo comes out of the grass ten yards to your left at flank speed. My vote is (minimum) my 450 Dakota with a 500gr solid at 2400fps or better yet; my 505 Gibbs with 535gr Woodleigh solids at about the same speed.

In that scenario no rifle is going to be "big enough", you are going to need to hit him perfectly or you are done.

In the end it is all a matter of degrees. We all know that bigger guns hit harder. We all know that you can place your shot more precisely with a medium bore than you can with a big bore. The rest is all talk.

Ever noticed how the big bore crowd talks of the cape buffalo as though he is some sort of monster that needs shot after shot to kill, while the medium bore shooters seem to feel that there is not that much to killing a buffalo? I wonder why...

We saw some buffalo tracks early one morning on our hunt this year, and we followed them. They went into high grass, then into very high reeds. We could see the reeds move less than 10 yards from us, but of course we could not see the buffalo.

We climbed onto an ant hill, and waited to see if they come out of the reeds.

Before long, about 15 bulls appeared, all feeding about 30 yards from us. We picked the one we wanted to shoot, which, as usually happens, is either hidden behind another one or behind a bush.

Eventually he came clear, and I decided before hand that I would try to put him down in his place - I really did not wish to try to find him in that grass and reeds if we can help it.

So a 300 grain Walterhog bullet in his neck put him down instantly.

I have friends in Africa for whom I load solid ammo for their 308 Winchester, that is all they use to kill buffalo with.

Again, it is not the size of the bullet that kills, it is where it is placed.

Whats enough gun ????
458 Lott on a duiker - and anything else !!

Bullet construction and placement are critical.

That said, for non CNS hits, a bigger and heavier bullet at higher velocity will kill faster.