I'm reading a book by Bartle Bull called Safari and in it he states that hunters changed from using their heavy .577's to using the faster .256's and .275's for elephant and lion. Were the hunters back then better shots than us or just irresponsible? It just doesn't seem like a good idea to stop a chraging lion with a .275 at 200 yards or to brain shot an elephant. The lion seems realistic, but an elephant? Can someone tell me why they would even ponder hanging up their big bores. It would be interesting to read the books about hunting written 100 years from now, claiming, "Back in the good old days of the early 2000's, hunters chose to use big bore rifles on elephant than the more manigable .22's and .17's coveted by the dangerous game hunters of today."
Sevens

I think Bartle Bull is referring to one man, WDM Bell.

I also wish that people would read his book and comments in context. Every now and again someone says "but Bell shot elephants with a .275"

If a person reads his book, Bell used a .275 and the following factors are important:

1. He was shooting relatively undisturbed elephant. They often did not run away from the report of his rifle, not being used to firearms. This is common behaviour in animals wherever they are not hunted for long enough.

2. He was hunting them in high grass and shooting from the shoulders of a tracker or from a little flimsy tripod. When using heavier calibres he was thrown off backwards from the recoil so elected to use a low recoiling rifle as a result

3. It was not important if a wounded elephant got away other than monetary loss. He mentions collecting the tails of the elephants so he would have a "record" of how many to look for later. He reports sometimes having more tails than elephants. Definitely not acceptable today.

He also makes recommendations as to what calibre an ivory hunter should use and from memory recommended a .450 double and a .318 bolt for lighter game.

Availability of ammo was also a big factor.

Most big bore rifles shot blackpowder or at similar speeds, and the germans had more relyable ammunition for their 7*57 and 6,5*54-.256 mannlicher. The elefants wasn`t so afraid for humans so they shot them in close range with brain shots only. To follow a elefant herd you had to walk about 30km a day and a mannlincher 1903 weights only 2,8 kg and a bigbore doubble maybe 8kg. They didn`t track wounded animals that is dangerous.

NitroX,

Any excellent reply. Every fews months it's "but Bell used a 7mm Mauser?"

Bell claimed he used it because of its light weight and low recoil. I also think he forgot a lot of the details of what he had done, with many conflicting statements. In one section where he calims the .275 is so great, he admits the .318 was better at finishing off wounded elephants.

I think the old geizer was confused sometimes, and I can relate to that.

Bell was not the only small bore elephant hunter. Many of the elephant hunters who hunted around the turn of the century used the .256, 7mm and .318 along with others.

Many of the elephants croped in zimbabwe in the last 50 years were killed with the 7.62 Nato. If you have any doubts about the effect of the small bores please read Ron Thompson's book "Mahohboh". Thompson killed 5,000 elephants, some of which were killed with the 7.62, and all told he only lost two. I would say his record is not too shabby.

Jason

Jason,

Just because one can kill an elephant with a 7mm Mauser, doesn't really apply today as far as sport hunting. I would love to try it sometime but I sure as hell wouldn't want to face a charge with one.

Just how many times did Ron barely escape death with his 458WM? I forget now!

Guys,guys, guys,
before we enter into a heated discussion the topic here is not whetherthe small mausers are suitable or not but rather in trying to understand why some of the hunters favoured the lighter calibers to the heavier ones in spite of both being available.

I think the truth lies amongst the comments posted here. Anybody has another suggestion?

Nitro X,

Very good reply. I'm reading Tony Sanchez-Arino's book Elephants, Ivory and Hunters, and I must admit I skipped to the section on weapons because I wanted to see what the old boys were using. Big bores were used almost exclusively with the exception of Bell and if I remember correctly Sutherland used a 318 as a backup after he unloaded his 577.

John Hunter summed up the discussion best "Why send a child to do mans work?"

Personally if I was using a light caliber on a charging Elephant I would be yelling BANG! BANG! as loud as I could in the hope that if the bullets didn't do the job I could scare the old bull to death.

If I recall, the argument on smaller bores based itself in the increasing use of smokeless powder beginning in the 1890s. These powders gave such great increase in velocity that mesmerized hunters fell into the kinetic energy trap. Believe it was the .280 Ross used against lion that caused the death of a prominent Kenyan immigrant hunter and prompted reconsideration of small bores for dangerous game. Basically, these guys had not yet figured out what was enough gun with (then) modern cordite or flake powders.
Regards, Tim

Bell didn't have to pay trophy fees for wounded animals. You will.

Sevens

Note my comment above about people not reading Bell's writings in context wasn't aimed at you. More at the calibre choice threads that pop up regularly where someone always has to mention Bell and his light rifles.

Bartle Bull's book "Safari" is a good read isn't it. I found it in a book shop near Wimbleton after work oneday and then lugged it across London and the evenings entertainment. Never regretted it. Pity it is out of print.

NitroX,
I didn't take any offense to your comments. I am enjoying the book very much. It makes me envious of the early hunters. I would certainly like to have their generous bag limits.

I'm with Mike on his comment about not having to pay trophy fees. It makes the idea of being an ethical hunter a joke. If an animal was wounded and not recovered, that's no skin off their backs, they'll just shoot another. We have to abide by the game laws, pay for all shot game, and most importantly be the most ethical hunter we can be.
Sevens

In reading Bells book he went into the bad stuff after some very bad elephants and it was really exciting, not gentle animals....Elephants are elephants and they will charge simply because the wind changes...

I would love to hunt elephant with a 7x57 with solids and if anyone wants to pay for it I will shoot as many as you have money to pay or until I get stomped...

Considering the number of elephants Bell killed and his expertise with a rifle, and the fact he died of old age, how can any of us who have killed less than a small handfull or none even question him...I won't.

Then there are those who question Harry Manners and his .375 H&H, again it worked for him...

Apparantly good shooting is unquestionably an asset to the hunter, but it seems we today still question that and believe big hole in the barrel solve this problem, I don't think that is right....

I don't use the small bores simply because I feel better with a 375 or larger...but to tell the truth its mostly a mental thing, I probably would do as well with a lesser rifle,,,I don't know.

The subject deserves more attention than can be given here, but using small bores can foster a whole bunch of problems.



For example, it is going to be impossible to knock an elephant down with a small bore with a body/leg shot or if the brain is missed by much, and then the PH must be a part of the action. No thanks.

Bryan W

Quote:

---

I'm reading Tony Sanchez-Arino's book Elephants, Ivory and Hunters, and I must admit I skipped to the section on weapons because I wanted to see what the old boys were using. Big bores were used almost exclusively with the exception of Bell and if I remember correctly Sutherland used a 318 as a backup after he unloaded his 577.

---

Tony Sanchez-Arino simply left out all the hunters who used small bores. He knew Harry Manners personally but left his name off that list. I really don't know why his list was so skewed towards the big bores.

Will
You know I idolize you and I hate when we are at odds but I really fail to see why the small bores worked in the old days but are not applicable to modern sport hunting. Are the Elephants harder to kill these days? Maybe we should ask Ray about this, I heard he shot halves with Selous on his Safari in 1885.

Jason

Bell certainly wasnt an exception to the rule. At one time many of the old hunters used small bores. Chauncy Stigand used a 256 ( 6.5 x 54). He got hammered by a lion, but it was the Dinkas in the Sudan that finally killed him, not an animal. In more recant times, Von Abersleben shot over 1,000 buff with a 7x57 in Mozambique.

Jason,



I could go on for days, but...



I am not sure that Tony Sanchez is always non-profit motivated, and maybe he was just patronizing me but he told me at an SCI convention that using a .375 is being undergunned and he would never do it. You can take that for what it is worth.



All of the old-time elephant hunters, at least the ones that wrote books, had at least one and sometimes more than one narrow escape and usually had trackers killed when messing with elephants.



Also, Harry Manners did not ALWAYS use a .375, just in his book. He also got his long-time tracker killed by a ele when using a 375, though that may not be a direct correlation. There were not really any recent old-timers using anything as small as a .375.



I do not think we are really at odds. If one believes the Penetration Index, the PI's for the 7mm and the 375 are quite similar. As you know, a .375 will drop an elephant quite nicely, especially from a side brain shot. And I am sure in the vast majority of cases, a 7mm could be used quite successfully.



But, here are the big BUT's. If you hunt elephant long enough, especially cows, you are going to get charged (or maybe it is just me). It is easy to talk the talk about braining a charging elephant, but, I haven't been able to do it yet, much to my discredit!



It is one thing to brain an elephant from any angle and for any head position, and even when they are running, but quite another when the ele is charging, especially when they are right on top of you. If the brain is missed, one has to rely on causing enough damage so that the ele is turned, and that, in my experience, takes horsepower. On the first charge, it took three nearly simultaneous head shots, all of which somehow missed the brain, one each from a 460, a 470, and a 416 to turn that cow (no time to reload). Spooky! If there had only been two of us at the scene, I'd probably not be worrying about the subject anymore, as she was about on top of me when she turned on the last shot from the 416.



I have settled on the 416 RM as a compromise between rifle weight (no scope!), horsepower, penetration, magazine capacity, and old age. I could bore you with more anecdotal evidence, but if I was a young guy like you, and could stand the recoil and/or weight, I would be carrying something bigger than a 375, especially as you seem to have the true bug.



I am not saying that you should not continue to use your 375, but at some point you will most probably change your mind. It will be interesting to see what happens. Good luck to you.

This topic, among other Internet debates, should be separated into �What CAN be done, and What SHOULD be done�

Taking down an ele with a 7X57 CAN be done. Shooting a buff with a 45-70 CAN be done. However, neither SHOULD be done...