Thought the article below by Boddington on calibres for buffalo was quite good and consistent with my very limited experience. I've always used a .416 Rem. Mag. for buffalo (and just about everything else for that matter). Just got back from Tanzania and 400 grain Swift A-Frames proved more than adequate.

Three bulls were taken with a total of five rounds expended, only three of which were necessary. As to the extra two rounds, one was delivered to a bull on the ground during his death bellow to save him a couple of minutes of pain. The other was a running brain shot to a bull whose heart was already gone; he just didn't know it.

I've used Noslers, Trophy Bonded Bear Claws, and Barnes, but the A-Frames were flawless this trip. I think I've found a new bullet. Here's Craig's article.

THE RIGHT STUFF FOR BUFF

Is the .375 or the .416 a better choice for African buffalo?
By Craig Boddington
My buddy Zack Aultman had just shot a nice buffalo on the edge of the herd, and followed up his first shot perfectly. We didn’t have to worry about that one but, as sometimes happens, the herd stood, milling uncertainly. Amid the two or three hundred buffalo were several more good bulls, so I replaced Zack on the sticks and we started sorting through them. Some that had beautifully shaped horns were still too young, but after a few seconds we found a beautiful bull a bit right of the herd’s center. Although surrounded by other buffalo he was on our edge of the herd, so we focused on him. When he turned broadside I held a third up into the chest, near the center of the shoulder, and squeezed the trigger.
The hit sounded good and the reaction looked good, but he was immediately covered up in the press. There was no chance for a second shot, but as the herd stampeded we could see him losing ground. Just as he came clear he started to wobble, and then pitched forward, nose first.

Across the board I believe in a good expanding bullet for the first shot on buffalo. However, quite a few modern PHs still recommend solids for “dagga boys,” meaning single bulls where overpenetration is not a problem.
A few days earlier I had been in a similar situation, except the herd was bedded and the distance was much greater than I prefer for buffalo, about a hundred and sixty yards. We were stuck, no cover at all, so we spread the sticks low for a steady sitting position and started sorting out the herd. There was a lovely old bull on the far side, lying down and covered up, but sooner or later he would get up, so we focused on him and settled in to wait. Eventually he stood, now covered by a cow, then by another, now walking to the right, with a clear gap just in front. I held on the horizontal centerline of the body, middle of the shoulder, to get the most latitude for error, and squeezed off as carefully as I could. That shot, too, sounded good and looked good, but again he was lost in the herd with no safe follow-up. As they moved off he lagged and stood clear, and I was just about to fire again when he fell over, nose up in the air.
These shots had in common ideal presentation, which you always strive for but don’t always get. Nobody takes a bad-angle first shot on a buffalo, but the frontal presentation is common. It’s effective if you do it righ, and disastrous if you slip a bit right or left. Because of the animal’s size and strength follow-up shots are important on buffalo, but it isn’t unusual for other buffalo to obscure additional shots. In my experience, absolutely pure one-shot kills as described are fairly rare. In fact, under most circumstances I would have gone closer and fired an insurance shot, but when we approached these buffalo were so obviously dead it seemed silly. That said, “it’s the dead ones that get up and kill you.” Bullets are cheap, hospitals are not . . . but this was on wide-open ground, so we approached very carefully, and there was simply no need for another bullet.

This excellent Mozambique buffalo was taken with an LAW M704 in .375 and a single 300-grain Hornady DGX. The rifle wears a 1-6X Leupold. Pure one-shot kills on buffalo are circumstantial rather than intentional, but the old .375 H&H is definitely adequate!
Lots of Choices
These circumstances would lead one to believe that, finally after all these years, I found the perfect caliber and bullet combination for buffalo. Except: The first buffalo described was taken with an LAW M704 in .375 H&H, firing a 300-grain Hornady DGX. The second was taken with a new Rigby Big Game double-square-bridge in .416 Rigby, firing a 400-grain Swift A-Frame.
These are clearly different choices that achieved the same results. Over the years I’ve hunted Cape buffalo with many calibers from .338 to .500, including most of the .375s and .416s. If you include water buffalo, which are larger, you could add 7mms, .30-calibers, and .35s. Oddly, I have never hunted buffalo with a 9.3mm (caliber .366-inch), but should state that, in most African countries that have caliber or energy restrictions (some don’t), the actual legal minimum is usually 9.3mm rather than the .375 often stated. Even so, I think the majority of modern buffalo hunters gravitate to the several .375s or the lower .40s as the primary choices.

Left to right: .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, .416 Remington, .416 Rigby, .404 Jeffery. There are numerous .375- and .416-caliber cartridges, but these are the most popular, plus the .404 Jeffery, which has made a strong comeback. The .375s are plenty adequate for buffalo, but the lower .40s are probably more decisive with equally good shot placement.
The renewed popularity of the .416s and similar cartridges (.404 Jeffery, .450/.400) have led many to question the adequacy of the .375 for buffalo. I genuinely believe the .375 H&H offers a sensible minimum for buffalo. Let’s be careful: “Sensible minimum” does not infer inadequacy! You could say that the .416s and their ilk are “more adequate”--but the rifles will usually be heavier and, all things equal, deliver more recoil.
Often, with similar shot placement, I have felt that a .416 delivers more decisive results than a .375, but not always! In any case, pure one-shot kills on buffalo are unusual no matter what you are shooting. Shot placement is always critical, and the .375 H&H is easier to shoot well than any .416 . . . and it's also easier and, for most people, faster to make well-placed followup shots.
Is Bigger Better?
For buffalo, I don’t think so. Sure, the true big bores can be decisive on buffalo. But caliber increases resistance and thus decreases penetration, and, with good bullet performance, velocity overcomes resistance and increases penetration. A 300-grain .375 at 2,500 feet per second or a 400-grain .416 at 2,400 feet per second will penetrate better than a 500-grain .450-caliber bullet at lesser velocity. This is a matter of physics. For elephant I remain convinced that the .375 is very minimal, and bigger is better, starting with the .416s. But for hunting buffalo bigger is not better, although a close-range charge is a somewhat different story.
Remember, too, that despite our best intentions it isn’t always possible to get extremely close to buffalo. Especially in a herd there are just too many eyes and ears and noses. In most areas an eighty-yard shot is fairly normal, and there are circumstances where a shot past a hundred yards is the only opportunity. Here is where the versatility and shootability of a .375 or a .416 (or .404) are far superior to the more specialized big bore.
Other Considerations
It is a romantic ideal to hunt buffalo with an open-sighted rifle. However, unless you’ve already taken a buffalo or two and, this time, it’s important to take a buffalo with a special rifle, using open sights is foolish. For most of us, shot placement will not be as good unless you’re able to get very close, and you may have opportunities at great buffalo that are beyond your capability with iron sights. A red-dot sight offers a good alternative, but a low-powered scope with a lighted reticle is probably the ideal setup.
As far as bullets go, I’ve seen the worm turn. When I started hunting in Africa expanding bullets were still widely distrusted and most professional hunters recommended “solids only” for buffalo. Today the majority recommend our great modern softpoints, although in my most recent (2007) survey for Safari Rifles II a fair number of PHs specifically suggested expanding bullets when hunting herds and solids for bachelor bulls.
Depending on magazine capacity I usually keep a solid or two in the bottom of the magazine for that “going away” followup that is so common. However, I am absolutely and totally convinced that the great expanding bullets we have today will take down a buffalo much more quickly and more efficiently than any solid, and will provide adequate penetration on frontal or broadside presentations. The hunting I’ve been doing in recent years in coastal Mozambique has taught me more. Most of the time we are working big herds, and we cannot use bullets that are likely to pass through. We take a lot of frontal shots, which help, and on broadside shots we try to stay on the shoulders, but we prefer bullets that will expand and do their work, but are unlikely to exit. There are quite a few of these, but good examples are the Hornady DGX, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame, and Woodleigh. Whether in .375 or .416 they will do the job if you put them in the right place. If you don’t, then neither caliber nor bullet will save you from a long day.

Boddington and PH Mark Haldane with a lovely old Mozambique bull, taken with a new Rigby Big Game in .416 Rigby and a single 400-grain Swift A-Frame. This was Boddington’s longest-ever shot at a buffalo, 160 yards, enabled by the Leupold VXR 2-7x33 scope. Closer is better…but sometimes not possible.

quote:

Is the .375 or the .416 a better choice for African buffalo?

The above sounds just as good as:

Is the 270 as good as the 30-06 for deer?

Both will do the job, bullet being placed right.

No question about it.

Lava a,
I read that article too. That is an example of why I struggle to accept CB as a "great writer" . He used a lot of words to tell the world he does not have an opinion other than"yes, they will both do the job of you place the bullet correctly".

That article is the very reason I go on a rant about him and others out there. They rarely take a position and stand by it. They are politicians pandering to the next sponsor.

Since I have been an active and aware hunter, I have watched CB try to sell me Dakota rifles (on Boddington on Buffalo DVD), Ruger Number 1 rifles he endorsed, CZ rifles now and I believe Mossberg or Savage in the recent past.

He and others endorse anything for money. I see an article like this in a similar light.

He and others get paid "by the word", then fill up magazines with obvious drivel that never really tells you anything....

I grow weary of this....

Sorry for the rant......

Another vote for the .416 Rem. Mag. Nothing wrong with the .375, but when faced with a choice, the .416 is the way to go.

In regards to Boddington's writing style, it's tedious to say the least.

Shot Placement, Accuracy, is the most important criteria. I have used 375 H&H, 416 Rem Mag, and 458 Lott on Cape Buff. A quality bullet and my favorite are Swift A-Frame. Recently on a cape buff I shot with the 458 Lott using 500 grain A-Frame, the bullet expanded perfectly with little to no loss in weight. Took him through the shoulder and through the heart. But still required two follow up shots. Buff I have taken with 416 Rem Mag, the first shot were killing shots, but all required follow up until the buff fell over. The 375 H&H I highly recommend for its ease of use, suitability on all game, and with the right bullet excellent terminal performance. Last but not least, use what you shoot well and with confidence.

I love a good caliber talk here on AR...

Enough of this "they're both great" stuff - I want to hear some of the more experienced folks take a position. If nothing else then just for the sake of discussion.

Maybe we should approach this as, "What does one caliber give you that the other one doesn't, thereby making it a better choice"?

I haven't used a 416 so by default I'm going with the 375 - it's much, much better.

Discuss.

I have a .375 and a .404J and the latter has a bit more punch to it.

Whilst the put the bullet in the right place theory has lots of merit I have knocked over a few troublesome buffalo with the .500 and the sledgehammer effect was noticeably visible.

Does Boddington get paid by the word?
That article tells nothing that anyone with a little experience and knowledge doesn't already know.

Being "paid by the word" is a phrase that article writers use. They have an allotted 2500 to 3000 words for many articles. They get flat fee for the articles, hence being paid by the word - whether or not they actually say anything.

I have shot Buffalo with 470 NE, 458 Lott, 416 Rigby and 375 H&H. They all died fast when I put the bullet where it was supposed to go.

I gave up reading Boddington long ago. He doesn't have opinions, he has positions relating to who paid him last

I have an opinion.
The 375H&H is the absolute perfect buffalo caliber as long as you are shooting 300gr TSX.
I base this off of personal experience.
100% of the buffalo I have shot with this combo were one shot down & done.
Of course, I only have 1 buffalo to my credit.

Nothing new in the article. However, I do not see what motivates CB after all his state of the art hunts to shoot a buffalo at 160 yards.

If the gun writers ever had a firm opinion on an issue like this, they would never be able to write and get paid for the same story again in the future......

quote:

Originally posted by TREE 'EM:
That article tells nothing that anyone with a little experience and knowledge doesn't already know.

Definitely agree on that point. Just not much substance.

Didn't mean to turn this into a Boddington bash-fest. I thought it was a pretty good article. But based upon the comments, let me take a definitive stand.

For buffalo, I think a .416 Rigby or Remington is the best overall cartridge available, especially if used with what I believe to be the best 400 grain soft available, the Swift A-Frame.

My definitive stand is based upon my limited experience and I have not shot buffalo with anything other than a .416 Remington. It has worked well with all bullets, but the A-Frames were stellar.

I have no idea how many buffalo I have shot, or have seen shot.

They include buffalo shot with various 375s, various 416, various 458.

There is no way in hell one could tell that one actually kills better than the others.

Even with exactly the same shot placement, and the same caliber, different animals might give a different reaction.

Going back to the article, just imagine the hassle writers from the past would have gotten into if they were here today.

Some of them used to write utter nonsense, and get away with it, because not many bothered writing letters to the editors - and who might choose what letters to publish.

One writer I enjoyed reading was Bob Milek.

I remember him writing that the 243 Winchester is marginal for deer, but he is quite happy to recommend the 357 Magnum as a good deer cartridge?

Or Elmer Keith writing that he broke the spine of a deer with a 30-06, but the deer still got away??

Never shot them with a .458, a .470 or anything larger. Suspect a similar result.

lavaca,

Can you give us more particulars on the A-Frames's performance on the buffalo.

Do you have any recovered bullets that you can show us?

Blair.

All things being equal and Central Nervous System shots aside the 416 kills better than the 375

It definitely hits harder, slows buffalo down better and makes bigger holes. In my opinion the definitive comparison is how quickly a solid of same construction from each calibre will kill. A heart/lung shot buffalo shot with a 416 solid will die quicker than the same shot with a 375 solid

There will always be exceptions and anomalies!

Also if I had a client going to place a marginal shot on a buffalo I would absolutely prefer that it was a 400 grain 416 to a 300 grain 375, hands down no contest.

Charging buffalo is a whole other ball game, calibre becomes largely irrelevant and shot placement becomes everything

quote:

Originally posted by Docbill:
I gave up reading Boddington long ago. He doesn't have opinions, he has positions relating to who paid him last

That is the conclusion I have come to....

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have no idea how many buffalo I have shot, or have seen shot.

They include buffalo shot with various 375s, various 416, various 458.

There is no way in hell one could tell that one actually kills better than the others.

Even with exactly the same shot placement, and the same caliber, different animals might give a different reaction.

Going back to the article, just imagine the hassle writers from the past would have gotten into if they were here today.

Some of them used to write utter nonsense, and get away with it, because not many bothered writing letters to the editors - and who might choose what letters to publish.

One writer I enjoyed reading was Bob Milek.

I remember him writing that the 243 Winchester is marginal for deer, but he is quite happy to recommend the 357 Magnum as a good deer cartridge?

Or Elmer Keith writing that he broke the spine of a deer with a 30-06, but the deer still got away??

Rare is the gun writer/product endorser that has a publically stated and defendable opinion based on facts. Over the past few years, I have personally tied out about 6 different "species" of rifles, 4 different brands of scopes, three brands of optics, about 7 or 8 types of bullets and three types of rain gear. Everyone was highly endorsed by a gun writer ("I trust xxx and my life depends on xxxx").

In all of this, I have found that for me - the rifle that shoots best is the one that fits me and I like. The optics I like best are those my eyes see best looking through, the bullet (other than a ballistic tip) is no big deal - the TSX, TBBC, Partion, A-Frame, Accubond - all do the job. Rain gear is another matter - it depends on the type of downpour. Anyway, I quit reading most of the what gun guys say as well as any trip reports from gun writers.

I find the reviews on AR better than anything a gun writer has to say.....

quote:

Originally posted by TREE 'EM:
Does Boddington get paid by the word?
That article tells nothing that anyone with a little experience and knowledge doesn't already know.

Agreed, and the reason I can't stand to read most hunting mags anymore.

Caliber is far behind bullet construction and bullet placement in my mind.

By all means if you can shoot a 600 nitro well use it . But shot placement is everything a Buff will be just as dead with a well placed shot from a 375 as a 458. Most people I know flinch with the bigger guns. Better to be able to shoot well with a 375 than marginal with a heaver caliber.

I don't think anyone here has shot near the number of buff as has Saeed, so I usually defer to him on things like this. But with that said...

I've shot 21 buffalo, all but one with only 2 different calibers (.375 RUM and .416 Ruger) and all died just as dead! The .375 RUM with 270 grain bullets at 3,000 FPS smashes buffalo, as does the .416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS. I didn't know one caliber killed a buffalo more dead than the other? That would be news to me!! This is the silliest argument we see on AR, and we see it all the time.

I shot a buffalo once with a .577NE - it was a POOR shot, we followed for long time, we were charged, we were lucky, blah, blah, blah. Never/ever had that happen with either of the other two (much smaller calibers) Could it be that I made a BAD shot with the .577NE, but yet I made good shots with the other two? I suspect so, leading me to the conclusion that shot placement is really all that matters!!!! End of story.

Have a nice day guys!

quote:

.416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS.

Was this velocity chronied or "advertised"?????

Good article by Boddington, who with well over 100+ Safaris to Africa has certainly shot more buffalo than a vast majority of those of us here on AR. (Saeed excepted) I've only shot 6 cape buffalo using the 375 H&H, 450-400, and 470 NE, so by no means am I an 'expert'. However, all of those calibers have decisively killed buffalo for me. I have not killed buffalo with my 458 Lott as of yet, but I am sure that it would also do the trick as well. Great bullet construction, bullet placement and accuracy are certainly the keys. Thanks for sharing lavaca.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

.416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS.

Was this velocity chronied or "advertised"?????

Who cares - the buffalo ALL died in a big hurry.

My experience is that:

I think the bigger bullet gets a bit more reaction to the shot, and that they drop with a little bit less running. (Less than 10% difference.)

I know that both work well with proper placement.

The only buff I lost was with the .375; it was also the worst shot on a buffalo that I have made. I have had a goat rope one time with the .416, but that one ended up OK due to my second shot.

Truth is I don't think there are that many folks who have shot enough to give an experienced answer (after all it by definition means you had to have shot at least two, and better yet double digits) and many never experiment with other guns.

By being a writer with mandated choices Boddington probably has shot buffalo with more different calibers than anyone short of Pondoro Taylor. His bonafides are good, but as others have said, he can't be telling the unvarnished truth because he needs to get paid. I am sure, in private, he would admit to that.

This is just the African version of the 9mm/.45 or the .270/.30-06 argument. Something to write about that gets people to read and get exercised about.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

.416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS.

Was this velocity chronied or "advertised"?????

Who cares - the buffalo ALL died in a big hurry.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
[QUOTE].416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS.

Was this velocity chronied or "advertised"?????

Published velocity for the 416 Ruger 400 gr is 2400 fps, not 2600 fps.

The article was pretty vague.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I don't think anyone here has shot near the number of buff as has Saeed, so I usually defer to him on things like this. But with that said...

I've shot 21 buffalo, all but one with only 2 different calibers (.375 RUM and .416 Ruger) and all died just as dead! The .375 RUM with 270 grain bullets at 3,000 FPS smashes buffalo, as does the .416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS. I didn't know one caliber killed a buffalo more dead than the other? That would be news to me!! This is the silliest argument we see on AR, and we see it all the time.

I shot a buffalo once with a .577NE - it was a POOR shot, we followed for long time, we were charged, we were lucky, blah, blah, blah. Never/ever had that happen with either of the other two (much smaller calibers) Could it be that I made a BAD shot with the .577NE, but yet I made good shots with the other two? I suspect so, leading me to the conclusion that shot placement is really all that matters!!!! End of story.

Have a nice day guys!

Interesting. The last Buffalo I saw shot with a .577 by Leon Kachelhoffer literally stopped it in it's tracks. When the buffalo resumed the charge the .500 poleaxed it. Meanwhile it was being peppered by a .375

Those big guns have significantly more stopping power.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Those big guns have significantly more stopping power.

+1, enough said.

Let us forget buffalo for a minute, and look at other animals.

Regardless of what animal is being shot, regardless of caliber, if you fluff the first shot, you will have a problem on your hands.

It is mazing how far an animal can go with what looks like serious injury.

quote:

The last Buffalo I saw shot with a .577 by Leon Kachelhoffer literally stopped it in it's tracks. When the buffalo resumed the charge the .500 poleaxed it.

Big bore rifles, .470 upwards were designed for close range shooting and any target beyond 70 yards was (and still is) considered a long shot.

The accuracy and performance from these large/heavy calibers is best achieved at close range; their ballistics speak volumes.

Blair:

I'm pretty techno-challenged and hope to have my daughter help me with my pictures this weekend. As to the Swift A-Frames, I recovered 3 out of the 5 expended on buffalo. One is still imbedded in the skull of the buffalo that was brain shot. I'll send pictures when I can, but suffice it so say that the only surprise was the bullet embedded in the off shoulder of the last bull. That bullet kind of came apart. That was the shot that nearly knocked the bull down, so we can't say it failed and that was the bull that ultimately dropped to the brain shot. But the Swift A-Frame in the off shoulder didn't look like every other one I've seen, nicely mushroomed. The only difference I've seen previously is how far down the bullet mushrooms and that depends totally on how far the animal was at the shot.

No problem with the pics mate.

That all sounds very interesting, particularly the shoulder shot. I was wondering if you got exits on broad side shots etc etc.

The strangest thing I've ever seen with regard to bullet performance was a 225 grain TTSX fail to penetrate to the off side lung of an oryx cow at 90 yards, out of a 338RUM. The recovered bullet looked like a propeller blade....

I used some 225grain A-Frames on that hunt and never recovered one!

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I don't think anyone here has shot near the number of buff as has Saeed, so I usually defer to him on things like this. But with that said...

I've shot 21 buffalo, all but one with only 2 different calibers (.375 RUM and .416 Ruger) and all died just as dead! The .375 RUM with 270 grain bullets at 3,000 FPS smashes buffalo, as does the .416 Ruger with 400 grain Hornady ammo at 2,600 FPS. I didn't know one caliber killed a buffalo more dead than the other? That would be news to me!! This is the silliest argument we see on AR, and we see it all the time.

I shot a buffalo once with a .577NE - it was a POOR shot, we followed for long time, we were charged, we were lucky, blah, blah, blah. Never/ever had that happen with either of the other two (much smaller calibers) Could it be that I made a BAD shot with the .577NE, but yet I made good shots with the other two? I suspect so, leading me to the conclusion that shot placement is really all that matters!!!! End of story.

Have a nice day guys!

Interesting. The last Buffalo I saw shot with a .577 by Leon Kachelhoffer literally stopped it in it's tracks. When the buffalo resumed the charge the .500 poleaxed it. Meanwhile it was being peppered by a .375

Those big guns have significantly more stopping power.

Andrew,

I love the fact that it was being "peppered" by a 375.

Pearler