I didn't want to hijack asdf's thread, so ...which would you take for plains game if you had both and could only take one? 280 or 9.3x62?

Plainsgame in Africa is a pretty broad spectrum of both species and terrain! For open shots on medium size game in terrain like the Kalahari or OFS of South Africa, the .280 with heavy for caliber premium bullets would shine on animals up to 400 pounds. In the dense mopane scrub of Zimbabwe, I would prefer the 9.3 and would be comfortable on any plainsgame I encountered from grysbok to eland. I don't think there is one blanket answer to your question. I have both calibers and both are excellent in the right application.

Since PG includes giraffe (4000 pounds), eland (2400 pounds), kudu (500 pounds), waterbuck (500 pounds), on down, I would strongly prefer a 9.3 x 62 for its bigger hole and greater penetration ability. If PG meant impala, warthog and duiker only, then I would take the .280.

quote:

Originally posted by ACRecurve:
I didn't want to hijack asdf's thread, so ...which would you take for plains game if you had both and could only take one? 280 or 9.3x62?

If it was going to be in bushveld country (closer ranges) then I would take the 9.3x62. I leave Aug 20 headed to the far north of the Limpopo Province in South Africa for a plains game hunt. I've been to the same place twice before so I know what the terrain is like. (It's bushveld.) I'll be taking my CZ 550 in 9.3x62. In 2000, I hunted there with my .375 H&H. In 2002, I took my 30-06 (handloads using the Woodleigh 220 gr RN at 2460 fps; I'm old fashioned ). I figured I would try my 9.3x62 this time around.

Just my two cents (from a not so experienced hunter)....
-Bob F.

9.3x62 no question about it. Gemsbuck are pretty only one example of critters that can take a beating and run for hours.

Rather do what I can to keep the time doing followups to a minimum.

500 Grains has it exactly. Would you really want to try a 280 on moose and American Bison? Eland are the size of moose and giraffe are larger than bison. Kudu are the size of elk. Take the 9.3!

quote:

I didn't want to hijack asdf's thread,

No worries!, I was glad to see it brought in more opinions. Seems both have their advocates.

I've been thumbing through my books and notes on hunting again, and it seems 28 cal. is about the minimum most experienced writers (eg. Boddington and Barsness) advocate for elk sized game. Other writers are more comfortable with 30 as a minimum. By the time you get to 33 caliber, no one argues about adequacy, and 36 caliber starts to edge one into the dangerous game league. (You get the same conclusion reading the posts in these two threads.)

At least that's how I'm reading it, trying to merge dozens of different sources. The .318 class is within my range of recoil tolerance, so I'm leaning towards reboring to that.

Well, actually, that's absolutely correct! The basic reason that the .318 Westley Richards was the most popular of the "Light Medium" calibers during the 'tween wars period of British Africa was that it worked, and worked so well that the only thing you would need beyond it would be a .450+ caliber if you were going after DG. If you are a handloader, it is a much better choice than either of the two posited here. If you are not, and don't mind buying your ammunition in case lots so that you always have some on hand, the .338/06 is comparable, but lacks the patina of history, the polish of panache, the 'pproval of Pondoro and suchlike. Again, if you insist on a choice of either 7mm or 9.3, take the larger. But, if you want the best possible choice, get a .318 WR!

quote:

500 Grains has it exactly. Would you really want to try a 280 on moose and American Bison?

Absolutely, and without hesitation.

Chuck

Depends on what your plainsgame menu includes. If the biggest were Kudu, I woud feel ok hunting w/ my .280 & 160-175grNPs. If I was going for Eland Or hunting the thick stuff only, then a 9.3 would be great.

The .280 is fine with 175 gr. Noslers for all plainsgame inclucding Eland, and has more range than that 9.3x62..If your hunting lowveld then take the 9.3x62 if your in the mountains take the .280...

BFaucett,

quote:

In 2002, I took my 30-06 (handloads using the Woodleigh 220 gr RN at 2460 fps; I'm old fashioned ).

How did the 220gr Woodleighs do in your '06 on that plains game hunt? What load did you use?

If it was me I'd choose the .375 with either the 270gr or 300gr Barnes TSX. If I thought I'd have shots over 300 yards, then I suppose the .280 with 175's would have something to be said for it.

I was talking to some guys in the Jborg airport once. They were telling me how tough Waterbuck were, and how they had shot one 5 or 6 times with a 375 H&H before they finally got it. Then I showed them a picture of my wife with her Waterbuck that she'd taken a couple of days before with 1 shot from a 7 MM Rem and a 150 Gr. X bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by 458RugerNo1:
BFaucett,
How did the 220gr Woodleighs do in your '06 on that plains game hunt? What load did you use?

458RugerNo1,

Check my posts in this thread: Heavy Bullet Loads for the '06 Several photos posted. Short answer: they worked great!

My .30-06 load with the 220gr Woodleigh RN is 52.0 gr of IMR-4350, W-W cases, Winchester WLR primers (standard, not magnum). COL: 3.16 inches (my Ruger M77 has a short throat). Chrono average muzzle velocity: 2460 fps. If I do my part, this load will put them into 1.0 to 1.25 inches at 100 yards. BTW: 52.0 grains of IMR-4350 was Jack O'Connor's recommended load with 220gr bullets.

-Bob F.

There is a doctoral dissertation out there waiting to be written (by someone else!) comparing the reliable lethality of long-for-caliber bullets of any caliber to their corresponding HV SP sisters. I'm hardly surprised at Bob's results as anyone silly enough to spend much time reading my posts should immediately realize. Long-for-caliber bullets at moderate velocities penetrate reliably in a straight line and exit the other side having expanded to a considerable diameter. They cause spalling effect from the bones they penetrate on the entrance side. Tiny bullet fragments are thrown off and go slicing through vital organs due to the rotation of the bullet. The main central core drives right into and out of vital organs (when placed correctly, of course) and when they exit the large hole bleeds profusely making tracking, if necessary, much easier. This is the "secret" behind all those cartridges that "kill better than they should" the 6.5x54, the 7x57, the 30/40 Krag, the .318 WR, etc. Yes, you give up pointblank range and your long distance shooting is definitely impaired. However, since according the USFS 90% of all animals killed in hunting are shot within 150 yards, this isn't much of a sacrifice. This is especially true in most of Africa. Of course there are exceptions and I am in no way claiming that flat shooting calibers with premium spire-point bullets are some sort of unnecessary nonsense. However, for most hunting under most conditions, long roundnosed bullets are the way to go. Wah-Hey!

I am agree with the observations of an intermediate caliber between 280 and 9.3x62. The 318 WR is one example. Another example is 30-06 with medium to heavy bullets (180-220gr). I have met many hunters (PH and citizents hunters) who have taken with this caliber (30-06) all the animals of Africa (including Lion, Elephant and Buffalo) without any problem if the animal is quite and the bullet well placed. With this option (30-06, and the adequate bullet) you always will be perfectly armed for plains game in most the situations, and the ammunition for the rifle can be found in any place of Africa.

Oldsarge,

Yes, I agree. I just like being a little old fashioned and doing it the "old way". (Though I do like using the modern bonded core bullets.) Long, round nose bullets at moderate velocity do seem to work well.




We band of Edwardian hunters!

-Bob F.

I like that little safari guy...guess that is why I use him as my logo...
I call him Harry Hunter from Hunters Headquarters in Bedford, TX!

Harry,

I like him too! I think I stole that graphic from your web site!! If you'd like me to quit using it then just let me know.

-Bob F.

Bob F,

Thanks for the load info... I've always been into the heavy-for-caliber bullets. In '06 the lightest I've used is 180gr, but am interested in experimenting with the 220's just because.