Using 120 grain soft points!

Well, I hear those Ballistic Tips are real game-killers. Almost as good as MatchKings!



George

Saeed,
I was thinking of something similar. How about a DG BB gun safari. What would be the prefered BB for elephant?

quote:

Originally posted by Brain1:
Saeed,
I was thinking of something similar. How about a DG BB gun safari. What would be the prefered BB for elephant?

Daisy made a double -- you might want to hold out for that one!

I would prefer a good double (pre-war if possible) over anything available now. To my knowledge, everything made now, including the really big bore pellet guns, are (finger) push feed. The BB may fall out while trying to reload when hanging upside down.

Sorry, but it's not a real XP-100 unless it's wearing the Buck Rogers Zytel stocks and chambered for the original 221 Fireball. I know, I know, it's push feed, but the danger adds some spice to the chase...

I'm building a .22 lr double rifle right now, that I thought might be a good Buffalo rifle! Useing a controled expansion, premium bullet, of course! I have to be careful however, not to let the old foggy's see the QD scope bases on the quarterrib!

MacD: Just don't use the quick shoks, they break into three pieces, reducing penetration.

Gentlemen,

Laugh as much as you like.

From the book A LIFE ON SAFARI by Geoff Broom with Craig Boddington. ISBN 0-9764142-0-1

"....Michael Coleman wanted to take a buffalo with his little handgun. They worked in close - but not too close - and waited until they got the ideal quartering-to presentation. Michael's little 120 grain bullet penetrated through 36 inches of buffao, puncturing a perfect hole through its heart. It worked so well that he took another Matetsi buffalo - two buffalos with two bullets - and then he took a lion as well..."

I used to have a side by side rubber dart gun I would shoot my wind-up rabbit with. I would think that would be more then sufficient for buff.

Why do people think they have to perform stunts while hunting, using minimal calibers or worse insufficient calibers. Yes the animal mercifully died, but it still is a stunt and a potential inhuman form of proving your manhood. I don't get it.

I read a story in the past of two hunters from South America on safari.

They both liked to shoot at each animal together.

The PH reported that they had to fire a total of 27 rounds, out of 458 Winchesters, into one buffalo before they killed it.

I somehow think the buffalo shot with the XP-100's 120 grain bullet did not suffer as much as this one did.

I agree with you 100% that we should try our best to make sure the animal does not suffer unduly. But I do not think that is governed by the size of the bullet, but where it is actually placed.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
But I do not think that is governed by the size of the bullet, but where it is actually placed.

You are absolutely correct, in your opinion that it is PLACEMENT more than bullet! However, in the examples you offer, the theory is rock solid. For every example where this turned out to be better with the little 120 gr bullet, over 27 rounds of 458, there will likely be ten thousand that would go the other way!

In fact both examples you post were stunts. with the two useing the 458WMs screwing up royally, and the the pistol shooter being damn lucky that little bullet didn't hit a blade of heavy grass before it got to those Buffalo, and keyhole on that bad boy!

Either way, even if you shoot well, and know your target's anatomy, crap happens, and if it happens with a big bore, it can happen with a small bore, and the best result will certainly be on the side of the larger bullet! A slightly off center 458 WM is a whole lot better, than a slightly off center 7mmBR 120 gr bullet from a single shot pistol, any way you look at it!

The man who said "USE ENOUGH GUN!" was a wise man, where Cape Buffalo are concerned, IMO!

Saeed ----- I have the book you refer too and have read it, in fact I got Broom and Boddington to autograph it in Dallas, however I do not remember reading that particular part, I will reread and pay attention. I use the 7mmBR as my Colorado pistol. Colorado does not allow a rifle to be transported on an ATV, unless all rounds are removed and it is cased. However you can carry a loaded pistol, go figure. I run 8 miles up a mountain to where I park then hunt approx. a mile away. I utilize the 7mm BR strapped to my chest while running, the why is for Couger protection. I have a great deal of respect for the round, (I much prefer the 140 grain Barnes TSX bullet) but I have absolutely no desire to attempt to take a Buffalo with it. I took mine with a .416 Rem and will the next time. I don't fault the guy for doing his thing, everybody gets his kicks at his own speed. Good shooting.

Dang, I wasted the money on a LH M70 in 375 H&H when I already had this in my safe.

hey, don't abandon the 22 LR SXS idea...be a great little rabbit/nutria/coon gun...might be better in a 357 mag, actually, a 357 mag would be a nice size double as well...

I think Saeed is absolutely correct. In modern times, we consider this a stunt. However, I just re-read "Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter" by Bell, and he did the equivalent too many times over too many years to call it a stunt. These small 6.5mm and 7mm bullets will penetrate an enormous distance at moderate velocities, and history has proven that they will kill large animals quickly if shot accurately.

With our modern game laws, cost of hunting and supplies of game, it certainly makes sense to use a larger rifle now. However, guys like Bell spent years at a time in the bush, and likely single handedly shot more dangerous game than everyone posting here put together. Their lessons shouldn't be totally lost on us. We tend to ignore their views when they don't coincide with our romantic sense of hunting. For instance, I love double rifles, and nothing evokes more of a sense of safari than a big bore double. However, Bell, who by his own admission was not an expert on buffalo, having only killed several hundred (and not in the open plains generally), considered a double only slightly less than stupid as a buffalo rifle. That tends to not set well with the modern safari hunter, so we just quietly ignore that little bit of advice from one of the most experienced hunters in history.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
But I do not think that is governed by the size of the bullet, but where it is actually placed.

You are absolutely correct, in your opinion that it is PLACEMENT more than bullet! However, in the examples you offer, the theory is rock solid. For every example where this turned out to be better with the little 120 gr bullet, over 27 rounds of 458, there will likely be ten thousand that would go the other way!

In fact both examples you post were stunts. with the two useing the 458WMs screwing up royally, and the the pistol shooter being damn lucky that little bullet didn't hit a blade of heavy grass before it got to those Buffalo, and keyhole on that bad boy!

Either way, even if you shoot well, and know your target's anatomy, crap happens, and if it happens with a big bore, it can happen with a small bore, and the best result will certainly be on the side of the larger bullet! A slightly off center 458 WM is a whole lot better, than a slightly off center 7mmBR 120 gr bullet from a single shot pistol, any way you look at it!

The man who said "USE ENOUGH GUN!" was a wise man, where Cape Buffalo are concerned, IMO!

Mac,

I agree with you 100%. Trouble is most people tend to have predefined ideas what should and should not be used on buffalo, forgetting the basic fact I have mentioned above.

This year one of our hunters misplaced his first shot on a buffalo. He ended up shooting it several times, as well as his PH chipping in with several rounds too.

Also, I have noticed people tend to believe bigger is better when it comes to buffalo - which is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. For the simplest of reasons - many people CANNOT shoot large bore rifles well, especially under hunting conditions.

Having a shooting range, I get many people coming in here to sight in their rifles. Any time someone walks in here with a rifle from a 7mm magnum and above, there is a likelyhood that he would not be able to shoot it as well as he thinks. I have seen the same thing when I lived in Texas too.

I keep a few rifles in 243 Winchester, 6.5x55 Swedish, 7x57 Mauser, 260 Remington and 270 Winchester handy. These I use to swap with larger caliber rifles people buy and cannot shoot well.

Hunting buffalo, more than probably any other animal in thick bush, tends to sort of encourage screw ups. It had happened to me several times, when a bullet hits something, and one ends up with a wounded buffalo. After having this happened to me a number of times, and having ended up chasing the wounded animal for miles on some cases. I found that one HAS to shoot to anchor the buffalo the first chance he gets once the animals is wounded. And for this the only choice is to shoot the animals in the head, neck or spine.

Which brings back my original point about shot placement.

We have Walter as a perfect example of someone who shoots very well off the bench, but, as he puts is "bullets do not hit the animal where I aim!"

On numerous occasions, after having missed several shots, he would come back and tell me to check my scope.

Sometimes one meets someone for the first time and make an accurate judgement of what is going to happen.

We were hunting in Zimbabwe, and another hunter passed by our camp with his PH on the way to another camp. And as usually happenes, we all looked at each others rifles.

This gentleman had a Ruger 77 put in a thumphole stock, which weighed about 15 pounds! He had a 1-3x cheap Tasco scope on it.

After they left our camp, we had bets that he won't be able to hunt much - he was after a lion!

After his hunt, we got the whole story.

First he did not want to pay for bait animals - he thought they wewre provided free of charge!?

Eventually he agreed to shoot a kudu cow. They found a herd of them, and he duly clobbers a young bull standing several yards away from the cow he was supposed to hit!

A couple of days later he was convinced to shoot a hippo for bait. The hippos are shot in the water, and the rules were "you shoot, you pay", the same as with crocs.

This was made plain to him, and he agreed. The PH got him to a pod of hippos, pointed out a bull for him, and told him to brain it - I saw that place myself, and the furthest one could shoot would have been no more than 30 yards.
Well, you guessed it. He fired and missed, and had to pay the price.

I know, this is probably an extreme example. But I also think it happens more often than we hear about.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Also, I have noticed people tend to believe bigger is better when it comes to buffalo - which is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. For the simplest of reasons - many people CANNOT shoot large bore rifles well, especially under hunting conditions.

Here we have a sweeping statement that the employment of large bore rifles is "totally wrong", supported merely by a declaration that most people can not shoot them well enough. Here, use of the term "totally" would hardly seem appropriate. What then of the many who do shoot their large bore rifles well? Are they still totally wrong? If not, then why not?

Capstick tells in one of his books of a hunter that accidently killed a 60 pound tusker with a single shot from a 22 LR rimfire.

Upon examining the bullet placement he decided he could do it again and since he had another license he proceeded to again shoot another large tusker behind the front leg as it was extended to walk hitting the very large blood artery that is right under the hide causing the animal to bleed to death very rapidly.

If I ever get to hunt ele I can assure you that I'm not going to try that trick and that I'll use a gun at least a bit bigger!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Also, I have noticed people tend to believe bigger is better when it comes to buffalo - which is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. For the simplest of reasons - many people CANNOT shoot large bore rifles well, especially under hunting conditions.

Here we have a sweeping statement that the employment of large bore rifles is "totally wrong", supported merely by a declaration that most people can not shoot them well enough. Here, use of the term "totally" would hardly seem appropriate. What then of the many who do shoot their large bore rifles well? Are they still totally wrong? If not, then why not?

What I meant was no matter how big a caliber you choose, if you cannot shoot it well it is NOT going to make much difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Also, I have noticed people tend to believe bigger is better when it comes to buffalo - which is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. For the simplest of reasons - many people CANNOT shoot large bore rifles well, especially under hunting conditions.

Here we have a sweeping statement that the employment of large bore rifles is "totally wrong", supported merely by a declaration that most people can not shoot them well enough. Here, use of the term "totally" would hardly seem appropriate. What then of the many who do shoot their large bore rifles well? Are they still totally wrong? If not, then why not?

What I meant was no matter how big a caliber you choose, if you cannot shoot it well it is NOT going to make much difference.

What I asked was, if one can shoot it well, WILL it make a difference?

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Also, I have noticed people tend to believe bigger is better when it comes to buffalo - which is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. For the simplest of reasons - many people CANNOT shoot large bore rifles well, especially under hunting conditions.

Here we have a sweeping statement that the employment of large bore rifles is "totally wrong", supported merely by a declaration that most people can not shoot them well enough. Here, use of the term "totally" would hardly seem appropriate. What then of the many who do shoot their large bore rifles well? Are they still totally wrong? If not, then why not?

What I meant was no matter how big a caliber you choose, if you cannot shoot it well it is NOT going to make much difference.

What I asked was, if one can shoot it well, WILL it make a difference?

On VERY rare occasions, it might

I think I got my first real education into the value of placement over power many years ago in australia. I was a dedicated big-bore man, and could shoot them well. But when I saw some of those old fox, rabbit and pro-roo shooters go at it I had to step off my soapbox. I saw big pigs brained with 17 hornets and the likes, perfectly placed shots on animals that dropped better then any bigbore would do when useing a (football)approach at vitals shooting ect.
If I was going to bet on two men going out buff hunting, I'd put my money on one of those aussies with a .308 long before the average reasonable shot with a 458 lott for one shot kills.

quote:

On VERY rare occasions, it might

Ahh .... progress!

quote:

Originally posted by Art S.:
I think Saeed is absolutely correct. In modern times, we consider this a stunt. However, I just re-read "Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter" by Bell, and he did the equivalent too many times over too many years to call it a stunt.

There is no question Bell did use small cartridges, to take all manner of dangerous game!

That being said, I disagree with you in your thinking that the use of those small rifles was not a stunt, it most deffinetly was a stunt, but one of necessity in his case. He was admittedly, simply friegtened to death by heavy recoil, heavier than that of the 7mm Mauser. He had one of the makers build him a real rifle, and after fireing it at their range told them he didn't want it! That rifle was not a BIG bore at all, but, I believe, a 404 Jef.

quote:

With our modern game laws, cost of hunting and supplies of game, it certainly makes sense to use a larger rifle now. However, guys like Bell spent years at a time in the bush, and likely single handedly shot more dangerous game than everyone posting here put together. Their lessons shouldn't be totally lost on us.

There is no question Bell was a real hunter, and it is certain he has taken more dangerous game in Africa than anyone liveing today, and as you say, probably ten times what the collective membership here has.

We have his word that this was a better idea than what most, including the game departments of every country in Africa, other than Mozambique, consider to be proper rifles for this purpose, today. IMO, he was simply wrong, as are people who follow his example!

However we also have his word that his shots were always true, and leathel. IMO, like most writers of his day, he failed to tell us of the ones lost, wounded, and not followed up, or the ones who killed some poor slob a week later, because he was angry about the festering wound in his head, that didn't get the job done.

quote:

I love double rifles, and nothing evokes more of a sense of safari than a big bore double. However, Bell, who by his own admission was not an expert on buffalo, having only killed several hundred (and not in the open plains generally), considered a double only slightly less than stupid as a buffalo rifle. That tends to not set well with the modern safari hunter, so we just quietly ignore that little bit of advice from one of the most experienced hunters in history.

There are many, today, who have the same opinion of double rifles for any purpose, and I agree with him on some level, but not on Buffalo, or, in fact, any dangerous game in close quarters. The bolt rifle is easier to learn to load, and shoot properly, and in most DGR doubles the recoil was simply above Bell! The fact that he did not consider them to be usefull bears no truth to that, as fact!

It is a fact that there are many who constantly quote Bell, to justify thier use of small rifles that are not well suited as DGRs, be they double, or bolt! Those quotes hold no water, in choosing to try to duplicate Bells poor choice of caliber, and not writing about it's failiers,as well as it's successes.

What I'm saying is, one must take the writeings of those old guys,with a grain of salt! Guys, like Bell, who were not hendered by laws that, today, require us to follow up all wounded game, and sort it out, and/or if it can't be found, pay for the trophy anyway. In the days of the ivory hunter, one could shoot animals who had never seen a man with a rifle, giveing the hunter the advantage of getting close, without causeing any undue concern to the herd, so his shots could be placed very easily. If he wounded the animal,rather than track him for miles, to get the ivory, he simply shot another. It is my opinion, he only wrote about the ones he killed, not the ones he shot!

I would say to those who want to try Bell's antics, be my guest, but IMO, when one considers the 375 H&H with modern bullets to be about the bottom of the barrel for ele hunting, I certainly don't consider a 7mm Mauser a better choice!

quote:

Originally posted by Art S.:
However, Bell, who by his own admission was not an expert on buffalo, having only killed several hundred (and not in the open plains generally), considered a double only slightly less than stupid as a buffalo rifle.

I'm interested, do you have the actual quotation that says this? I can not remember reading that opinion and am interested in what Bell actually said.

Saeed You have killed more buff than most Ph s we have seen your shot placement on many video clips. You are an excellent shot, better than most.You know exactly where to place the shot. I say go for it. Who cares if some think it is a stunt or whatever, it is your hunt, besides the ph will have a backup rifle. Best of luck

But real men use buckshot.

I guess I have a couple questions concerning this; (1) what is the hunters motivation for using a sub-caliber for DG? We all know that you can kill buffalo with a 7x57, it still doesn't make it a buffalo rifle. Does it add a further degree of excitement? (2) If this had failed would be have heard about it? I suspect not.

Saeed,

I would want a Controlled Round Feed XP-100.

Wouldn't you?

Andy

Gentlemen,

It seems some of you don't read the whole thread - hence assuming it is me who is planning to do one of these stunts.

I will stay with using my 375/404 on buffalo - there is that enormous difference of 0.091" in bullet diameter, which can mean the difference between life or death

Yes, with merely twice the frontal area ... and then there's that silly 250% heavier bullet!

NitroX

I've been away and didn't get to answer.

I don't remember where in the book this discussion occured, but it popped out at me when I read it. In it's context, it was my impression that the bias was due to the fact that the buffalo were not hunted as trophies but basically herding food animals, and the double was much more limited in the taking of multiple animals. (In viewing some of Saeed's videos, I wonder if that at times might be one his concerns!)

MacD37

I agree that a lot of old writer's may not have been totally honest, but then again, many new ones aren't either. I suspect that many of the modern African writers operate about halfway on beans. Over the last thirty years, I have been in enough Western US outfitter camps who have told the true story of some of our most famous outdoor writers' hunts to realize that about 2/3 of what we currently read is total bull**it. What you have to do, old or new, is try to separate the chaff from the wheat.

You are right that Bell didn't like heavy recoiling rifles. However, that doesn't mean he didn't use them, as he states that he did for part of his career. He just switched because other rifles suited him better. I don't recall anywhere that he stated he was "freightened to death" or even frightened by recoil. He simply didn't like it.

Quoting from chapter XV of "Elephant Hunter":

"At one time I used a double 450-400. It was a beautiful weapon, but heavy. Its drawbacks I found were: it was slow for the third and succeeding shots; it was noisy; the cartridges weighed too much: the strikers broke if a shade too hard or flattened and cut the cap if a shade too soft; the caps of the cartridges were quite unreliable; and finally, if any sand, grit or vegetation happened to fall on the breech faces as you tore along you were done; you could not close it."

That's six drawbacks, two related fundamentally to large bores, two to quality control and two to doubles. He didn't mention recoil.

The chapter starts with:

"The question of which rifles to use for big-game hunting is for each individual to settle for himself. If the novice starts off with, say, three rifles: one heavy, say a double .577; one medium say a 318 or 350; and one light, say a 256 or a 240 or a 276, then he cannot fail to develop a preference for one or the other of them.
For the style of killing which appeals to me most the light calibers are undoubtedly superior to the heavy. In this style you keep perfectly cool and are never in a hurry. You never fire unless you can clearly see your way to place the bullet in a vital spot. That done, the calibre of the bullet makes no difference. But to some men of different temperament this style is not suited. They cannot or will not control the desire to shoot almost on sight if close to the game. For these the largest bores are none too big. If I belonged to this school I would have had built a much more powerful weapon than the 600 bores."

He goes on to say that the reason he so much liked the 276 was the fact that it always penetrated deeply into the brain of an elephant, which he said was not the case with the 264, since the solids tended to bend and not track staight.

Later, he says: "I have never been able to appreciate "shock" as applied to killing big game. Its seems to me that you cannot hope to kill an elephant weighing six tons by "shock" unless you hit him with a field gun. And yet nearly all writers advocate the use of large bores as they "shock" the animal so much more than the small bores. .....If you expect to produce upon him by the use of big bores the effect of a handful of shot had upon the Jumping Frog of Calavaras County, you will be disappointed. Wounded non-vitally he will go just as far and be just as savage with 500 grains of lead as with 200. And 100 grains in the right place are as good as 10 million.
The thing that did most for my rifle shooting was, I believe, the fact that I alwasys carried my own rifle. It weighed about 7 lb, and I constantly aligned it at anything and everything. I was always playing with it. Constant handling, constant aiming, constant Swedish drill with it, and then when it was required there it was, ready and pointing true."

And finally, at the end of the Buffalo chapter:
"I believe that buffalo can be very nasty when in thick stuff with a flesh wound, but there is no earthly reason with modern firearms why one should miss such a target as is presented by a buffalo't vitals. Always know where you are sending your bullet, I have found to be an excellent maxim."

To me, all this is consistent and evidence of a successful hunter who had come to a philosophy of hunting which served him well. It was based on an incredible amount of experience and, to me, seems reasonable.

As I said, it wouldn't be mine, because as long as your shooting doesn't suffer, bigger can't be worse. (The importance of weight is not there for me, as I am not going to hunt 500 miles on foot, carrying ammunition. Weight was a huge issue in Bell's mind). The real question is how much better it is. Too many prewar Americans with 220 gr 30-06's and too many African farmers with 303's and 8mm Mauser's shooting solids hunted their entire lives and consistently killed game and protected their crops for the use of small bores to be considered a stunt. It was actually a way of life in a lot of colonial Africa. The bulk of what we read was written by professional and specialist hunters of one type or another. I suspect the "average" experience was much different. It seems the common denominator in quickly killing large animals is to place a well constructed and deeply penetrating bullet at moderate velocity into a vital organ or the central nervous system. The animal will then quickly die. Anything else, and the animal will get jacked up on adrenaline and be a holy terror to bring down.

Very well said Art! I have no problem with Bell's reasoning, but his success didn't come over night,wasn't because the 7mm was better, it was because he became better! There must have been many failiers at the start of his use of small rifles, on heavy game. Like most of the old writers,he doesn't say anything about that!

Where I have the problem is with his writeings inviteing people to use too small rifles today, because he did! Kind of like some one once said, "I KNOW BELL, AND YOUR NO BELL" of course that was about John Kennedy, not Bell. The average hunter today is no Bell!

When you consider the average hunter who goes to Africa today, will spend 7 to 21 days, there maybe four times in their lives, and many only one time in their lives. Bell had enough time to log thousands of days in the field, and no restrictions on him if he wounded, sometimes without even knowing he had wounded in herd sittuations. The hunter today, doesn't have that luxury, with maybe a total of 105 days in Africa in a life time, for a prolific Safari hunter!

I understand his learning the ins, and outs of a chosen rifle over others. I did the same thing with a little 243 Win chambered Mannlicher Shoenauer rifle! I could handle that little rifle in the dark, better than most others on a range at a bench. Durring WWII I had the job of supplying fresh meat for five families liveing on my grandfather's ranch, and with a little single shot .22, I killed ove 100 deer,and wild boar, in the five years of that war. The fact I did this, has little to do with recomending a .22 lr for deer/boar. That fact,also didn't make the 243 rifle into an ELK rifle, eventhough, I killed many Elk with it! A fact that was writen into many state's game laws. Also, in Africa the laws are writen the way they are because they have found not everyone is a BELL, and so outlawed the small rifles for dangerous game! Just like me with that little 22, the farmers of Africa, which by the way, many have been killed by those large animals shot with those small rifles. Useing small rifles for everything, doesn't make it a wise, or safe choice, just one of THAT'S WHAT THEY HAD!

I believe Bell was an honest man, and I certainly enjoy reading his books, but he, and some like him, Im sure,have caused people to be hurt or killed over the years , by following his lead.

Still, the old writers are the ones we most want to read, and that is natural! Just like the gun slingers of the old west, most have become heros, with their faults being disregarded by today's readers, and the stories taken to be gosple, and used to justify just about anything!

I wish the old writers had understood rifles a little more than they did,and had written more about them. This would be a great reference to the collector, as well as dispell some of the misconceptions their writings today push forward. Most of the old African/Inda hunters had maybe three rifles of different chamberings, and had no idea what other chamberings would or would not do. They simply used what they had, and found out which of their battery was best in THEIR HANDS. Like Bell's statement that most want to use large bore for more shock! That is patently wrong, fast, and small cause shock, not big and slow! Large animals are not impressed with shock, but they are empressed with large holes in their vitals, and weight causeing deeper penetration even through heavy bone! Bone that would stop a 7mm Mauser (275 Rigby)!

The FACT is, a margenal shot with a heavy bullet, of large diameter, is better than a margenal shot with a small diameter bullet, and from some angles, only the big bore is any use at all. Two things, #1 one is bound by laws today, and #2 time is money, and one doesn't have the time needed to pass all the shots he may have to pass with a small rifle, even if it were legal!

That is my only problem with the old wrtier's books, people take them as a reference as to what is usable today, and the old saying "THE ANIMALS AREN'T ANY TOUGHER TODAY THAN THEY WERE BACK THEN!" is true, but those animals will be just as wounded, in many cases, as they were in the old days with small rifles.

The set I don't have is Corbin's books, and a sittuation I intend correcting shortly! I've read them but simply don't now own them.