I just finished reading the book on Roy Weatherby's life. The book devotes a lot of time to Roy's personal notes and observations on African game. I read it carefully and one can't help but coming to the conclusion that high velocity, coupled with soft bullets kill game ( excluding elephant, rhino, buff) better than tougher bullets moving at slower velocities. The book is replete with examples and comparisons of how his 87 grain 257 killed zebras better than his 300 or 375 with Silvertips and Core Lockts, then the premiums of the time. He also made special mention of the 150gr Bronze Point bullet out of his 300s as being a great killer . He goes on to say that in all of his one shot {sic} "stone dead" kills the soft high vel bullets acted like bombs, devastating the animals' insides and no exit wounds.

I'm a firm believer in premiums, particularly for large game and used them accordingly in Africa and elsewhere ( I do use soft power points ahd high shoks on deer), but assuming Mr. Weatherby's voracity, one has to wonder. I don't think I'm ready to make that leap backwards, so I defer to those of you with significant experience with both types to elaborate. thanks, jorge

If you can get the bullet past the skin and ribs and it comes apart in the chest cavity. They well kill like lighting. Massive disruption of the lungs and heart drops them really fast. It is the hard angle shots and through big bones where they have trouble. I have shot lots of deer with 125gr 308s at 3200 out one of my 06's. They make mush out of the chest cavity. Don't know if I would want to try quartering shots. but on broad sides they are very deadly.

/

Roy Weatherby believed velocity was the real killer. He felt that if a bullet went fast enough it would kill no matter where it hit an animal. In the book you are refering to Weatherby mentions in his hunt diary that sometimes animals died with poor shot placement and at other times they needed follow up shots to get the job done. Back when Weatherby got started into developing his cartridges there was a lot of talk about high velocity and its magic killing powers. Phil Sharpe describes a condemned army mule being shot by a .220 Swift before a couple of MD's and they stated that if they hadn't seen the shot they would have believed the mule was electrocuted! Another guy named E. Baden Powell claimed he shot into a range killed steer with his .300PMVF and a blue flame flickered about the entrance wound and burping sounds came from the carcass. Inspite of all the drivel you read from those days the bottom line is putting good a bullet in the right place is what gets the game on the ground.

Things I learned by personal observation.

As a kid I used to go to the chicken coop at night to shoot rats. It was always a ball. I learned that .22 shorts did a better job of rats than a .22 Long rifle except the hollow points. And the .22 caliber Benjamin pellet gun was better yet.

When I bought my first handgun (a .44 Mag) I used it to shoot carp in the river. I learned that I could kill carp in deeper water with a .44 special load than a .44 magnum load.

I've read accounts by Jack O'Connor that he said he got better penetration on elk with a 7 X 57 than a 7MM Mag.

I've done a lot of silly experiments and I can attest that a .308 Win will shoot through more tree than a .30-06 both using the same Remington Core Lokt and I've proven that many times.

I've shot a big bunch of deer with things from a .222 to a .375 H&H....I'll stick to the smaller calibers!!

I've had people of experience on this forum coach me to load my .375 H&H down on Buffalo to 2,400fps.

I have the greatest respect for the late Roy Weatherby. He contributed immensely to our sport.

Having said that It's my opinion that there's a right match of bullet, velocity, and range. I'm sold on performance bullets like Swift A-Frame, Trophy Bonded, Barnes-X, Failsafe, and possibly others to come.

However, I'll stick with my .375 H&H over the .378 WBY and I'll stick with my .30-06 over the .300 Wby. Velocity helps to shorten the distance but I just can't shoot that far anyway and I don't need the extra recoil.

Velocity might kill, but exit wounds help me to find them. Extreme speed isn't the cats meow in my book.

Alf, Alf, Alf,

I know for a fact that you’re not quite as old as Dok Lukas, so stop thinking exactly on the same “time proven thought tract” as he does. You’re not gray enough yet!

I was also raised on the “old truth” that a heavy bullet at a moderate velocity killed more effective than some helter belted bolt of lighting, but alas, I don’t believe it’s the full truth anymore.

P dog shooter made a very distinct qualification when stating that if one could get the bullet past the skin & ribs, right into the chest cavity, a fast bullet will kill like greased lightning. In my not too humble submission – I concur with his observation. High velocity = extensive trauma. I do agree that extensive trauma in the non-vital areas are not conducive to the rapid downing & retrieval of a hunted animal, but extensive trauma in the chest cavity leads to the swift termination of life. Period.

Having said the above, I must confess that a heavy bullet, of sound construction, and traveling at a moderate velocity, will have a better chance of reaching the vitals at a difficult angle (which also concurs significantly with P dog shooter’s statement). But, I believe that the higher the velocity, and the bigger the frontal/connecting area, of projectile passing thru vital organs, the swifter the cessation of life.

Did Ganyana’s article appear before or after the article on the 7 STW?

As a side note, I use a .375 H&H on plains game, and a .404 on the big stuff. The only reason for this choice is my inability to consistently fire a perfect shot at the unobstructed vitals of the animals that we hunt.

Slow & heavy will ensure lots of biltong, and moderate amounts of dro�wors, but in the New South Africa – speed kills. Greased lighting fast.

I’ve got to hit the sack now. My client is looking for black wildebeest & waterbuck in the morning.

Have a super day!

Hey gents, don't think that I am proposing this tactic. All I can say is that I think what Roy wrote was the truth. He does say that there were lots of times when the animals were only wounded. In my experience, the most dramatic kills I've ever sone was on deer and hogs ( up to around 200lb) with 100grain Hornadys out of a 257 Weatherby and the impala and warthog I killed were put down the same way with a 300 Weatherby and 180grain bullets. I also nailed a black bear pretty good with a 220gr Hornady out of the same 300. Hell, he was trying to kill a buffalo with an 87gr 257!

I can't afford to roll the dice with his theory other than on deer and hogs here in the states. On my next trip to Africa for buffalo and a few other head, I'm taking my 416 Rigby at a modest 2350 FPS and 400 gr Swifts, 400gr HOrnady solids. For the Leopard and other game I'll be using a 300 H&H and Swifts also.

Interesting discussion so far. Oh yes, I think the main reason for the 5.56 over the 7.62 was not the wounding abilities, but rather less recoil, more prtable arms and a lot more ammo that a man could carry. jorge

The very light fragmentable bullet at high speed will only consistently work well if it gets into the chest cavity or possibly blowing apart a kidney. At least a kidney shot with a bow is considered good for the blood loss. That little 55 grain varmint bullet from a .223 can be really desvastating on whitetails even when hit in the shoulder blade. I'd bet that Mr. Weatherby's really successful shots were broadside.