The great Bullet debate of 2008

I just finished reading the side-by-side articles on the use of heavy, versus standard weight bullets in a rifle used for the taking of African dangerous game, in the January 2008 Issue of SPORTS AFIELD magazine page 62. Half this article was written by Kevin Robertson, and the opposing side written by, Craig Boddington.
Both are men I respect, and both are well versed on African game animals, and while both have hunted all the animals of Africa to some extent, these two men have differing opinions on what works best for them. I have to agree to some extent with both men, either, of which have far more experience than I will ever have where African Animals are concerned.
My first thought was, well, here we go with another [Kieth versus O`Connor let’s sell some magazines,] conflict! I was, however quite pleased with the debate after reading both sides. Though it may be a ploy to sell more copy, both sides make sense, and so, no matter the reason, the debate was useful in my opinion, both men being good writers, and both with credentials that can’t be disputed.
In this case, unlike the conflict between Kieth, and O`Connor, there seems to be no unpleasantness involved, with both men giving credit to the other, but simply disagreeing.

I believe this article will generate much discussion on the internet forums of all websites that discuss, bullets, and dangerous game animals, though I doubt the exchanges over this debate will be as respectful as they are between Boddington, and Robertson. I think when Internet experts shake all the chafe from the wheat; some very good information will come of it!

Question:
Do you lean more toward Boddington, or Robertson, in this debate?

Choices:
Robertson
Boddington

 

Which one takes which position?

I would side with whoever is arguing for heavier bullets. I have become a real fan of moderate velocity heavy bullets as opposed to higher velocity lighter bullets. Just my $0.02.

I agree. I appreciated the tone of both articles. If only more debates/discussions were so civil, we would all be the better for it.

I gave CB the edge. Standard weight bullets (such as the 300 grain .375, the 400 grain .416 and the 500 grain .458) are standard because hunters throughout history have proven that they work!

If I want more killing/stopping power, I use a bigger gun rather than heavy for caliber bullets in a lesser caliber!

Boddington favors standard heavy bullets for which the rifleing twist was cut, and makes a good case for that opinion.

OTOH, Robertson reccomends the use of ultra heavy bullets much heavier that the heavist available in factory ammo. He also makes a case for his view.

Actually, the only way to answer these questions is to read that article, and decide, because there are reasons why both are good, and not so good stated by the pair in this article. I would post the articles, but this is copy righted materal, and it is new!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which one takes which position?

I would side with whoever is arguing for heavier bullets. I have become a real fan of moderate velocity heavy bullets as opposed to higher velocity lighter bullets. Just my $0.02.

Mike,

Robertson was in favour of the heavy for calibre bullets, especially in 375 for buffalo.

He had some pics of various types and weights; the 380 Rhino SP had a mushroom like a propeller on a small plane!!

His argument came down to the fact that while Craig can shoot, the average client is better off with the heavier bullet due to it's better permanent wound channel and SD....given the fact they might not place the shot as precisely as they should.

quote:

Originally posted by Blair338/378:
His argument came down to the fact that while Craig can shoot, the average client is better off with the heavier bullet due to it's better permanent wound channel and SD....given the fact they might not place the shot as precisely as they should.

Blair, I think you have accurately summarized KR's core argument.

As a PH, he bases his conclusion on the abilities, and more importantly the foibles, of the "average guy." The predicate to KR's argument is that client hunters generally have difficulty handling recoil and shooting straight.

I can understand that. I am sure that KR's premise is based on his experience guiding many client hunters.

Maybe KR is right as far as the "average guy" goes - I can't really say for sure. But forgive me if I hold myself (and for suggesting that we should all hold ourselves) to a higher standard than that!

For one thing, buff are not hard to kill assuming you hit them in the lungs or heart. As long as you are using 300 gr. soft points you get all the penetration needed. Heavier bullets will penetrate less but both bullets are "overkill" on buff, assuming the shot is not screwed up. I doubt seriously a heavier 375 bullet is going to make any difference in a screwed up shot.

The more serious mistake is using solids on buff.

MR,

I have NO doubt that you can. And I agree with you.

I have no experience with buffalo, so my interest is purely theoretical. Both guys made good points, from what I could see...though I think KR's was probably more pragmatic....

Does anyone know if Mr. Robertsons was supporting 350 gr. before he started marketing Norma PH ammunition?



Face it, everyone has got an angle;nothing wrong with it,but it's the truth.....

I agree with Robertson when he talks about something like a 416 Rigby with a 450 gr or a 450 Rigby with a 550 gr or even a 500 bullet at 600 gr...but, I don't feel a "normal" weight bullet (458 @ 480/500 gr, etc.) at the normal velocity such as found in the NE rounds is at a disadvantage. If the round has the case capacity to push the heavier bullets at 2200 fps instead of the normal bullet weight at 2350, etc. then by all means.
Taking a heavier bullet and pushing it at 2050-2100 would offer nothing over the normal bullet weight at 2150-2200.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

Most of us who have read Craig's stuff over the years know that he has always preferred heavy for caliber bullets, just not extra (ultra) heavy. He likes the 300/375, 400/416 along with 180/3006. More than anyone I know of he has walked the walk and has earned his notoriety. I'm not a great shot and have only hunted buff four times with 375 and 416 with the 300 and 400 grain bullets. The bullets used were A frames and triple shocks with about half pass throughs. IMO there's little difference in being run completely over by a short train or a long train. Adrian

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Heavier bullets will penetrate less

Will,

Have you been smoking that funny smelling tobacco again?

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
I agree. I appreciated the tone of both articles. If only more debates/discussions were so civil, we would all be the better for it.

I gave CB the edge. Standard weight bullets (such as the 300 grain .375, the 400 grain .416 and the 500 grain .458) are standard because hunters throughout history have proven that they work!

If I want more killing/stopping power, I use a bigger gun rather than heavy for caliber bullets in a lesser caliber!

MR summed up my thoughts better than I could.

Canuck

I think the two are both correct, but from different perspectives! Boddington is more enterested in a wide range of use with any rifle he uses, to be up to the task at short range, but to be a little flatter out there where the Mountain Zebra, or the Gemsbok is standing at 300 yds. The difference being that as stated in the article Mr. Robertson's PHing, and hunting has mostly been limited to country like you find in Zimbabwe, and his own shooting being mostly as back-up for a client, and mostly under, by his own statement, his hunting at under 200 yds, and most at under 100 yds. To me that is a significant difference in aplication. Mr Boddington hunts as a client, and hunts far and wide, for every thing from praire dogs to elephant. That also was stated in the article. So IMO, it is a toss-up between the two men, because each opinion works best for it's owner, so there is no winner, nor looser in my opinion. I voted for the Bodington theory, simply it is closer to what I have used all my life, and it has always worked for me.

No matter what rifle, or target I'm after, I use a caliber that is best suited to that animal, and the terrane where he lives, and I use the heavy bullet for that chambering that is loaded in factory ammo, though I rarely use factory ammo. All my rifles have one load worked up for them, and I learn where that rifle shoots from muzzle to "MY" range limit, so I'm never suprized at where my rifle will print at the distance I'm shooting.

I had a PH once tell me he wanted me to re-zero my 375 H&H rifle to dead on at 100 yds! I refused! My 375 H&H rifles are always zeroed at 2.5" high at 100yds, with a 300 gr bullet. That rifle prints dead zero on target at 25 yds, and again at 200 yds, and with the horrizonal crosshair placed a couple inches above the top of the shoulder of an impala at 300 yds, it will take his heart/lung out! If I had done as the PH asked me to do, I'd not have made the next six shots on the next six animals through the boiler room,or in the case of the Hippo, the brain, and all but one a one shot kill, including a 39" cape buffalo. The one that required two shots was a running warthog.

So this is whay I say both men are correct for "THIER" shooting, but neither would be the case for everyone! IMO, the boddington theory comes closer to fitting all clients!

All just my opinion, but that is just what it is "my" opinion, nothing more!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
I think the two are both correct, but from different perspectives! Boddington is more enterested in a wide range of use with any rifle he uses, to be up to the task at short range, but to be a little flatter out there where the Mountain Zebra, or the Gemsbok is standing at 300 yds. The difference being that as stated in the article Mr. Robertson's PHing, and hunting has mostly been limited to country like you find in Zimbabwe, and his own shooting being mostly as back-up for a client, and mostly under, by his own statement, his hunting at under 200 yds, and most at under 100 yds. To me that is a significant difference in aplication. Mr Boddington hunts as a client, and hunts far and wide, for every thing from praire dogs to elephant. That also was stated in the article. So IMO, it is a toss-up between the two men, because each opinion works best for it's owner, so there is no winner, nor looser in my opinion. I voted for the Bodington theory, simply it is closer to what I have used all my life, and it has always worked for me.

No matter what rifle, or target I'm after, I use a caliber that is best suited to that animal, and the terrane where he lives, and I use the heavy bullet for that chambering that is loaded in factory ammo, though I rarely use factory ammo. All my rifles have one load worked up for them, and I learn where that rifle shoots from muzzle to "MY" range limit, so I'm never suprized at where my rifle will print at the distance I'm shooting.

I had a PH once tell me he wanted me to re-zero my 375 H&H rifle to dead on at 100 yds! I refused! My 375 H&H rifles are always zeroed at 2.5" high at 100yds, with a 300 gr bullet. That rifle prints dead zero on target at 25 yds, and again at 200 yds, and with the horrizonal crosshair placed a couple inches above the top of the shoulder of an impala at 300 yds, it will take his heart/lung out! If I had done as the PH asked me to do, I'd not have made the next six shots on the next six animals through the boiler room,or in the case of the Hippo, the brain, and all but one a one shot kill, including a 39" cape buffalo. The one that required two shots was a running warthog.

So this is whay I say both men are correct for "THIER" shooting, but neither would be the case for everyone! IMO, the boddington theory comes closer to fitting all clients!

All just my opinion, but that is just what it is "my" opinion, nothing more!

I see the arguement for both sides...but I tend to sway towards CB. Standard weight bullets have been doing the job for a LONG time, and now, bullets are better then they ever have been! Even CB used a 270gr 375 in one of those pics in the article, and a few members here have written about using 270 TSX on buff with positive results. But again, both make good points. Now if one was going into the thick nasty for JUST Ele or Buff, then by all means go a little heavier, but within reason. I think a 330 375 would be fine, kind of like stepping up to a 200gr in a 30-06. But like the 30 cals, just because they make REALLY heavy bullets, doesn't mean you SHOULD use them, and they may not have been designed or the barrels twisted for them. I recall an article a few months ago from another rag writer who was using the 250 '06 and lost several animals, a first for him. This also happened to several others in the group, but when they all switched back to 200gr, animals dropped like they were supposed to.

BUT, yet again, if you're going into the thick nasty for short range action....go with a bigger caliber if you want a heavier bullet. I'd much rather have a 400gr 416 or 404 then a 380gr 375.

BTW I must say, I loved the idea, hated the lay out. It was a pain in the ass to keep flipping pages to read half the colum, then having to go back. Give em both normal full pages.

quote:

Originally posted by woodmanDan:
Does anyone know if Mr. Robertsons was supporting 350 gr. before he started marketing Norma PH ammunition?

Actually, Kevin Talked Norma into loaing the heavy for cal bullets. Ken Stuart in SA (who makes most of the premium sp I use) made up the original test bullets, but couldn't deliver the volumes requred.

Beside - Woodleigh softs are pretty soft (compared to A-frames,TSX...) so making up with additional weight/less velocity makes quite some sence - would wonder about solids tho?

How do monometal bullets play in this debate?

When I am using a bullet like a Barnes TSX, I usually go DOWN in weight (i.e. 250 grain 9.3, 270 grain .375, 350 grain .416, 450 grain .458, etc.)

Mac: Thanks for the post. Now I must rush out and buy a Sports Afield. So far I am leaning toward Boddington, but will read the article.

quote:

Originally posted by MileHighShooter:
BTW I must say, I loved the idea, hated the lay out. It was a pain in the ass to keep flipping pages to read half the colum, then having to go back. Give em both normal full pages.

I didn't find it hard to read! I simply read Robertson, then read Boddington! easy as eating apple pie!

Could this possibly be in the January 2009? I pulled out the January 2008 and did not see the article. I have not recieved the January 2009 yet....

Mac

quote:

I doubt seriously a heavier 375 bullet is going to make any difference in a screwed up shot.

The more serious mistake is using solids on buff.

Amen Will!

I think that if you boil down what the two are debating the end result is the same:

Shot placement is the name of the game.

I wholly agree! I blew a couple of shots this season and saw firsthand that shot placement is critical even if you're shooting a .600!

JW

I loved the article, like MAC, I simply read one side, then went back and read the other. I voted for Boddington simply because, in my limited experience, std heavy for caliber bullets have worked fine for me. Also I agree with the statement: "if you need more stopping power, get a bigger gun". If a 300 gr 375 is not good enough, get a 404 Jeff.
I do see KR's side, in the end it's kind of like Ginger or Marianne. You won't lose no matter which you choose.
My 2 cents, worth what you paid for it.

TerryR

PS Happy New Year.

I think when Kevin Robertson speaks about bullets he is only considering large dangerous game. And I doubt many would disagree with him that heavy bullets are a good idea if dangerous game is the focus of the hunt.

Boddington is probably taking into account the fact that most people go and hunt dangerous and plains game, so some versitility on a one rifle safari is required.

They both certainly have their points, but I think it's apples to oranges to some degree.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by MileHighShooter:
BTW I must say, I loved the idea, hated the lay out. It was a pain in the ass to keep flipping pages to read half the colum, then having to go back. Give em both normal full pages.

Keep in mind their thoughts for printing in this format was a side by side comparison between the differnt bullet types/preferences between the authors. It was much easier to read than reading SCI's Safari magazine! I hate reading a couple paragraphs on page 32 and then needing to flip to page 158 to read the rest of the article. Then, flipping back to page 33 for the next article. Their layout publicist needs a lesson in flow and easy-to-read structure!

quote:

Originally posted by McKay:
Could this possibly be in the January 2009? I pulled out the January 2008 and did not see the article. I have not recieved the January 2009 yet....

Mac

You know McKay, you just may be right!

I went back to edit it to show 2009, but was made aware that if I edited the origenal post it would re-set all the votes, so I left it!

Sorry about that typo folks

It si, in fact the january 2009 issue of Sports Afield!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
Boddington favors standard heavy bullets for which the rifleing twist was cut, and makes a good case for that opinion.

OTOH, Robertson reccomends the use of ultra heavy bullets much heavier that the heavist available in factory ammo. He also makes a case for his view.

Actually, the only way to answer these questions is to read that article, and decide, because there are reasons why both are good, and not so good stated by the pair in this article. I would post the articles, but this is copy righted materal, and it is new!

I have to go with CB, a first for me! But that which has been proven over time has only gotten better with the newer generations of bullets designed along their terminal potentials.

Well done to both chaps.

I have the upmost respect for KR, but I'm with da General on this one.

Just bought it today, interesting read. I think I'm with CB on this one. I also think that we get to big on the armament! Most can't handle the big guns. Both are right about being accurate with the first shot. JMHO!

Mad Dog

I don't have access to the articles, but a point of interest is that KR puts across a viewpoint that is more generally held in Africa, or by South African gun writers anyway.
My first days on AR taught me that there is definitely a different view (by Saeed, amongst others who are well-informed), but all things being equal I would be more inclined to the slow-and-heavy school.

Early on (at least early in the KR stuff I have read) part of his dislike of the 300 grain bullets in the .375 came from them not stabilizing at very close range with IIRC 1 in 12" twist barrels, and he cited examples of close,close range shots that did funny things. I have not heard that anywhere other than him.

quote:

Originally posted by woodmanDan:
Does anyone know if Mr. Robertsons was supporting 350 gr. before he started marketing Norma PH ammunition?



Face it, everyone has got an angle;nothing wrong with it,but it's the truth.....

Robertson has published a number of articles in African hunting pubs over the years on this topic. One of the most informative was a collaborative article with an Idaho gunsmith (whose name I dont' currently recall) who is developing the 400 Tembo. In this article, there is a critique of numerous DG calibers and why they are good, adequate, almost right, not-so-right, etc. Thereafter comes the justification for the 400 Tembo(one significant advantage was to allow loading of cheap 40 cal bullets for practice on the range, something most of us don't do b/c of factory ammo cost). But the article certainly gives one a lot to think about. I have the magazine in storage but maybe someone on the board has it at hand and can give the title/date.

While the SA artice was most interesting, I think the poll may be more a reflection of our familiarity with CB's writings. KR is much less known here in the US.

But based on KR's African writings, I long ago gave up my Weatherby big-boomers (except for my wonderful 257) and got things into the parameters Robertson advocates. Greatly lessened recoil does make for a more comfortable experience.

Finally, I note some comments on complete penetration. I'm not sure what this indicates, other than not all energy was transferred inside the animal. Second, if the wound channel is small and you are in dense vegetation, it is going to be a heck of problem if the wounds don't generate a good blood trail. I suspect many of us have had that experience on one or mofe occasions.

I have been pursuaded by KR simply because he is a vet who dissects his animals. There is much medical literature in the US on human wound ballistics/trauma which is helpful for the ER docs. Military docs get this too. Robertson is the only ph/vet with whom I a familiar who dissects his animals to study wound damage. This adds considerable credibility to understanding what truly happened to bring down the animal. The "hammer of Thor" comments allow us to know that a shot was effective. They do not tell us why. KR wants us to understand the "why."

I would also support KR's comment on average hunters. If you get friendly enough with your PH, he will tell you that among his many problems is the too frequent experience with American and European hunters who while, experts on small/med caliber rifles, lack the same experience on the heavy calibers and are hunting animals they have never hunted before, generating a lot of adrenaline. Low recoil and big wound channels can contribute to a successful outcome.

What's your opinion;

Is a 600 grain bullet for .505 Gibbs a 'Heavy for the Caliber' bullet?

"Interested";well composed post....

Actually I had a nice discussion with Mr.Robertson in Reno must have been 2006(?).Nice guy,as is Mr. Boddington,and found him to be a genuine fellow.Had maybe a 25 minute discussion after hours with the guy.My post was a little tounge in cheek,it also shows the cynic in me,hence the pot stir;multiple times.

My approach; unfortunately or not;to most writers is somewhat skeptical.Always there seems to be a need to support ones view with a monetary consideration lingering in the back round.Hey everyone needs to make a buck,on both sides of the argument.Maybe will get a Ruger 375 vs. 375 HH with heavy for caliber bullets next.That will sell some articles,guns, and ammo.

OOPS,the cynic again....


No doubt any PH or guide will tell you that shooting practice with the weapon of choice is the single biggest problem with any hunter.Holds true in any country,not just Africa.May hold true more for DG as ammunition costs and fear of recoil scare a moderate number of wannabees to forgo any practice.How many times do you hear about the brand new cannon that gets shot once,or not at all,at the range before the trip.

The group here on AR is the exception I believe in general.I will fully admit I have never hunted DG and profess no knowledge on that subject.I have hunted PG a couple of times,and took a 375 last trip to get more knowledge of that particular rifle in the field.Thats after putting 300 rounds down the tube practicing at home.More than agree with KR's practice regimine of no bench shooting after zero'ing work,only real world type of practice.Has done well for me as I have yet to lose an animal there.Knock on wood.

I tend to side with CB, in my mind, on this topic.Only because KR's view always comes back to closeup thick vegetation applications.I'm leaning twords Namibia/Caprivi for a buffalo;shots tend to longer there it seems on average.

Hopefully I'll get my chance for DG in the future,but the economy is hindering the process....DAMN!

Dan

Well, If you want a live debate... Kevin is doing a talk on this at the DSC convention. Am lugging over some recovered bullets used by clients this year for him to use...

Craig will also be there... so - good reason to pull into DSC and listen and ask questions.

As I think is well known I use a 9,3 with 286grn woodleigh solids and a 500/416 with 410grn bullets as a back up - so I am no part of the debate

Both CB and KR make excellent points. In my opinion the use of ultra heavy bullets is dependent on what you intend to hunt and in what kind of habitat. In the close Jesse of the Zambezi Valley, the ultra heavy weights have a definite place. If your hunting where elephant and buffalo are not available then there is probably little need for them. A flatter shooting lighter bullet is the way to go in more open habitats where shots may be longer then in the Jesse.

I have used the 550 grain .458 Woodleighs out of a Lott at 2,150 fps and am a true believer in their added knock down power and increased penetration over 500 grain softs or solids when used on elephant or buffalo. I have seen over well 4 feet of penetration on buffalo from the 550 grain Woodleigh soft on buffalo. You have to see the increased penetration and knock down power of these 550 grain solids on elephant to believe it. I am always hesitant to carry ant soft when buffalo hunting in elephant country. If I was forced to carry a soft under these conditions it would be the 550 grain Woodleigh out of a Lott. I believe that it would reach the brain on a charging cow elephant since they hold their heads really low and it takes a hit very high in the forehead to reach the brain. That is the shortest route to the brain on a frontal shot and it also has to penetrate the least bone.

465H&H

We are all the benefactors (or victims) of our own experiences. If my DG experience were rooting out elephant/buffalo out of thick stuff in the Zambezi Valley I would no doubt side with Robertson. CB is unique in having hunted from one end of Africa to the other under many situations. A buffalo hunt in TZ may turn into a 250 yard shot at a kudu in a moment.

In reality, I don't think their positions are very different. CB is not advocating using fast, light bullets for DG.

The following applies to my personal experience with the 375 H&H.
Having shot buff with both 300 and 350gr bullets, it just doesn't make any diff to the buff, he is just as dead and there aint no "magic bullet" pun intended with buffalo. So it's a matter of using whatever you like best. That said, CB's arguements in the article are not correct,
1. He questions the accuracy of the heavy bullets because the twist may be too slow. In fact a 350gr Woodleigh is shorter than a 300gr Barnes and twist rate is based on the length of a bullet, not its weight, so if your gun stabilizes 300s, it will stabilize 350s.
2. The difference in recoil is negligible(non-existent).
3. The difference in ballistics is negligible (virtually non-existent) at most safari shooting distances and if you know the trajectory of your load, you are welcome to shoot klipspringers at 350+yards.
Bottom line, use what you are comfortable with, learn your trajectory tables (I tape mine to my stock), and place your shots carefully.