quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Zich6,

You want to argue with over 100 years of experience that has narrowed the ballistic profile of what works well, reliably, on DG in Africa. Why bother, the debate has been had long, long ago.

If you want to read lots of imput about the performance of cartriges in the class you favor you just need to read the books written by the guys who hunted before nitro powder.

If you want to read real, results on game, camparisons between the 45/70 or 50 Alaskan classes of cartriges and Nitro Express class cartriges just read books written by guys who hunted through the transition from black powder to Nitro.

Every fellow who hunted during the transition made the switch and the Nitro Express cartriges from 450/400 NE up came out being relied upon and the older Express class cartriges fell by the wayside. There is a reason for this and in one word it is performance.

Tons of dangerous game, including all of the Big Five have fallen to 50 Alaskan class of cartriges, most all of it before the advent of Nitro powder and the turn of the century. Your cartrige will kill DG, its simply not the optimum choice. Some, including me, don't think its a wise choice.

You need to get off your duff and go give it a try! I'm sure you can find a PH who will hunt you with your rifle for buff. Hell, the PH I hunted with in Oct told me he'd hunt a guy with a 45/70. He was fine with the idea of a full frontal or full broadside shot with a 45/70. Go give it a try!

I don't think you could find a PH who would go after elephant with you carrying your 50 Alaskan though. My guess is that after a couple of buff and being around elephants you wouldn't want to go after them with a 50 Alaskan class of cartrige either.

If you want to swim against the tide of history and proven results, no problem, its you hunt, but just go get 'er done.

JPK

If you are really interested in going and you want to make serious inquiries about going with a very good PH who will hunt with you and your rifle shoot me a PM and I'll forward his name and contact info.

JPK,

You're missing the point. There can only be 1 best cartridge for taking DG, and that is highly debatable, as you know. The point is to make known in this apparently stoggy forum that others have said really does need an enema that theirs is not the only way.

Secondly, I'm mistified that the standard reponse to new evidence is "get off your duff and go try it." Why should I have to do that, when I've presented evidence that it's already been done, with a less capable cartidge?

Your claims that the Nitro Express cartidges are superior is not based in fact. Consider: this quote from a well respected gun journalist: "Randy Garrett's 45-70 Hammerhead 540-grain hard-cast at 1550-fps went 55-inches into wet newspaper. The 500 Nitro Express with a solid weighing 570-grains penetrated 48-inches into wet newspaper, followed by the 458 Winchester Magnum with a 500-grain solid traveling at a muzzle velocity of 2260-fps and 47-inches of penetration. Penetration tests conducted at the 2001 Linebaugh seminar.
- John Taffin, American Handgunner, July / August 2002" While ballistic testing in wet newspaper is not the only measure of a cartriges effectiveness, it is a telling data point.


Lastly, your assertion "I don't think you could find a PH who would go after elephant with you carrying your 50 Alaskan though." is highly unlikely. In the link to Garrett I provided, Vince Lupo stated that Mr. Danie Clifford sr., veteran Professional Hunter and owner of Mahlapholane Safaris, lead his safari where he took an elephant with a 45/70, so it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Clifford would have no problem with a 50AK. You should read the thread thoroughly before jumping in with a rather uninformed opinion.

Thanks for the offer of a PH. Unlike other information that has been presented here, that didn't receive careful thought or deliberation, I'll consider it.

quote:

Originally posted by zich6:
Unfortunately for all the reasonable shooters here, it's necessary to remind you that one of the most important purposes of this, and all forums on the internet, is to provide experiences, your or others, that can be of interest.
across anything you think might be of interest to other fellow shooters, please consider sharing it with us, we would love to hear from you."

Obviously, my attempt to bring information I thought "might be of interest to other fellow shooters" was met by your "shut the f'up." Hardly in line with the founders intention for this site. Who is being flippant here?

My point being Zich while not written a politically correct manner and admittadley rude and to the point is that this information has all been covered so many times on this sight that it's getting old.

If you are going to quote me please do so in context. I didn't tell you to just "shut the f'up" .I was suggesting that you go hunting then come back with some relavent information and experiences and talk about them.

Zich you just bought this rifle have you even shot it yet? I've played with an 1895 in .50 Alaskan quite a bit. It's a neat round I never said it wasn't.

I am very weary of guys who buy some new supper thumper lever gun round who've never hunted a single DG animal in their life arguing that they have the new "sloution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

Nobody here has said outright that your round won't or can't kill DG. Simply, they've said that they believe through experience that there are better choices out there and that they perfer to use them.

As far as going through life on transmitt. Well Zich I've used .45-70's on game I've shot the .50 Alaskan I've killed stuff with .470 NE's and .458 Lotts and .375H&H's.

I've also hunted and killed cape buffalo and elephant. Not just read about but been there and done it on several occasions. I know what works for me I know what I like to use I never said your choice was wrong bad or even poor. I am simply saying that if you want to post about DG hunting and be taken serious you really should have some DG hunting under your belt.

So as you've so eloquently mentioned try and let go of the transmitt switch from time to time you may just recieve some valuble information.

I am sorry that I used a quotation for a "bad" word. I figured in a mans world speaking of a mans subject we should all be able to take it.

quote:

Originally posted by zich6:

We can argue all day but it will be difficult to convince me that a properly placed 50 Alaskan solid gas checked shot will not humanely bring home any critter on the continent.

If you had your mind made up from early on, then why post the question in the first place?

Upon your return from Africa, post a Hunt Report. In the mean time, since you have no experience hunting dangerous game, I would suggest that your closed mind might get in the way of you making an informed decision.

Will a 50 Alaskan kill a buffalo? Sure it will. So will a .243. Is it the best tool for the job? Probably not, but since you admit that it would be difficult to convince you otherwise, I don't understand why you even brought up the question?

If you want an answer to your original post:

"I'm considering a hunt using this caliber. Does any one have experience with cape buff or hipps? Thanks."

The answer is, NO, there isn't anyone on this Forum that has any direct experience using the 50 Alaskan on buffalo or hippo. End of discussion.

Regards,

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

My point being Zich while not written a politically correct manner and admittadley rude and to the point is that this information has all been covered so many times on this sight that it's getting old.

Agreed and DITTO!!


zich6,

Book a safari, use your .50 Alaskan on African dangerous game, and then come back and tell us about it.

-Bob F.

been reading all this and I for one can only laugh at most of the comments so far. Mike has it right, bullet at x vel. is what does the work. The cartirdge is just a holder for the bullet and lights a big fire on the ass end of said bullet. So if whatever 50 cal at x vel. is the ok buff gun then it goes with saying the 50ca. at x vel will perform the same. Couple of things that were said makes me wonder how these discussions last this long. Someone said something about killing buff @ 200 yds? I say if buff is at 200yds he aint dangerous. Most of the real bad stuff has and still is killed very dead with 7.62 nato???? advise 50ca. ak guy, practice on american bison, as far as killing goes, should be about the same. bill439

Zich6

No I didn't miss the point. Really you did. And here's why:

Your 50 Alaskan is a cartridge capable of the same performance that the 19th century British 50 calibre black powder Express cartriges were capable of. Hardened cast bullets are nothing new and were available for the Blackpowder Express riflemen then.

The combination of equivelent ballistic performance to your 50 Alaskan and hard cast bullets were used for taking DG, and with some success, for several decades in the 19th century, though 50 calibre was considered light for the purpose. Your rifle would perform similarly with the same plusses and minuses, and no differently.

But with the advent of Nitro powder the DG hunters dropped the weapons with ballistic parameters similar to and even better than the 50 Alaskan and instead adopted the Nitro Express cartriges.

If you want to talk ideal DG rifles you can talk bolt or double. You can talk 404, 416, 425, 458, 500 and 505 in bolts, and now some newer claibres. You can talk 400, 450, 470, 476, 500, 577, and 600 in doubles and now the 416/500. You can talk light weight, more recoil vs heavier, steadier but tougher to carry all day...But the one thing that all but two have in common is a steel jacketed solid bullet at 2100fps or more and a sectional density of greater than .300. The two exceptions are steel jacket bullets of .276 sectional density and 2175fps and at 2200fps.

You won't find any 500 BPE rifles in the field today. Their performance has been far surpassed. You won't find any 577 BPE or any 8 bores or 4 bores either and all for the same reason.

Interestingly you imply that we, who choose calibres that are anywhere from a couple of years old to 110 years old, won't consider anything new. Really, in respect to your 50 Alaskan, we won't considered anything old. Because thats really what your 50 Alaskan is, a repackaged 500 BPE with performance parameters right out of the 19th century.

Two things might make your insistant declaration of the supremacy of the 50 Alaskan tolerable, even to those who disagree. The first would be to do some reading on safaris of the 19th century, the transition period, and the all nitro period. Second would be to go and do it. If you shoot a couple of cape buffalo with your 50 Alaskan, and spend some time around some elephants - and no, I don't think you can find a PH, in any country, in any fair chase situation that would hunt you for elephants with a 50 Alaskan - and you return still singing the cartriges praises, you'll find a more receptive audience.

As for newsprint test, paper, wet or dry has been shown to be an unrealistic medium for comparrison to flesh and bone; bone being the key since bone needs to be penetrated to stop a charge. And when was the last time anyone was charged by a newspaper?

If you want to swim against 110 years worth of tide and current, go ahead. But first you need to dive in.

JPK

Ah, the infamous "45/70" thread all wrapped up in a new package LOL

I'll scattershoot around a couple of points here:

I've got the Scovill/Pearce articles regarding buffalo hunting with Lever Guns sitting around here . . . Scovill shot the hell outta his buff with a 50 Black Powder Express (aka 50-110), which is a hair larger case than the 50 AK . . . shot the thing a good half dozen times. Pearce shot his with a hot-loaded 45/70, got a complete pass through on one shot, killing the cow behind the bull, shot the bull again as it fled.

Conclusions?

Pearce is a better shot than Scovill? Maybe, but its a small sample size

the 45/70 with modern loads is a better round than the 50 BPE loaded with Black Powder? Maybe, but its a small sample size

Shot placement is more important than any other factor (beyond a minimum threshhold?)? Quite likely . . . LOL

Note: reference to these sorts of anecdotal evidence is not significant - anything can happen when your sample size is "one" or even "a few"

Similarly, for those of you who suggest one of these fellows "go to Africa and come back and tell us about your evidence" - if he does so, the sample size will still be "one".

I seem to recall once upon a time, one of the "old timers" here mentioned that he shot a buff with a 300 Win Mag (given that his big bore had been dropped or something) . . . had that been his only buff, would he be justified in concluding the the 300 win mag was suitable for buffalo? Of course not - the sample size is still "one".

If you're legal, and the pH is comfortable with the round, I'm not sure why the rest of us care. I have a 9.3x62 sitting around at the house - legal for buff in at least one country - 286 gr solid at about 22-2300 fps . . . if a pH is comfortable with me using it, great! (I'm not sure I would be comfortable using it, but that's another question entirely). I know that a lot of you would say use something bigger . . . of course, from what I read and have been told, a lot of pHs recommend using a .375 H&H, nothing more . . . Why not a .458 or something larger? They recognize that most of us don't shoot those large-bore rifles enough to be comfortable with them, and that the .375 H&H is about a as big a bore rifle as most of us can handle . . . and besides, "stopping a charge" is why the daily rate for a pH is about 3x as high on a DG hunt as a plains game hunt.

So, if and/or when I get to hunt buff in Africa, I'll use whatever the pH and I are comfortable with . . . most likely a .375 H&H - not a .405 WCF, 45/70, 50 AK, or 50 BPE - although I have to wonder about some other cartridges . . . but that's another thread, I suppose . . . LOL

Just go hunt!
Troy

Bill439,

Reread my posts. I agree with you 100%. What worked adequately in the 19th century will work the same way today, no better and no worse. Don't forget that the 458wm lost alot of favor early in its life after it was down loaded - but yet far exceeded the 19th centuries stalwarts or the 50 Alaskan's potential - to avoid powder compaction issues and before new powders brought it back close to the old standard of 2150fps +/-.

What gets me is repackaged ballistics being touted as the new end all be all. That and the assertion, without experience, personal or compiled, that a cast bullet will a, penetrate better - in the real thing - than any other style with the shape being held the constant and b, hold together when it hits the bones of buff or...Flat and large meplat bullets out penetrate rounded bullets of similar constuction, period. Thats why their is a move toward flat nose bullets.

Zich6, I don't think Lupos elephant was fair chase. And again, I don't think you can find a PH in any country who will hunt a client using a 50 Alaskan in a fair chase hunt. I'm willing to be proven wrong though so go do it!

JPK

Mr. Hibbitts,

Thank you for pointing out the basic statistics that so many seem to forget. Taking your pet gun and killing something with it proves exactly nothing. Miracles happen in sample sizes of one.

Ironically, killing ten or twenty buffalo proves little more. In any activity as diverse and unpredictable as hunting animals, there are many, many variables. When you have more variables, the tails of the bell curve widen, and you need more and more samples to prove anything (in a statistically significant way).

What this means is that VERY few non-professionals will ever get enough personal experience to know anything. Killing ten buffalo may cause you to form opinions. You may value your experience and opinions. But your opinions are not solid data, and don’t really prove anything. The plural of anecdote is not data.

The best we can do is to pool the collective experience of many people, over much time and come up with some general rules of thumb that work most of the time. I think that is approximately what the 2100+fps & .300+ SD & .375+ Caliber numbers really are. They are the distillation of collective experience. They are not absolute. They will not work every time. But they are the best we can do.

I predict in the calendar year of 2006, no current member of this forum (as of this posting) will book a Dangerous Game hunt in Africa and kill any of the Big 5 with a 50 Alaskan chambered, lever action rifle.

For any current member of this forum (as of this posting) who does complete such a hunt and does kill one of the Big Five with a lever action rifle chambered in 50 Alaskan, I will donate a prize of one bottle of a Single Malt Scotch Whisky of my choosing!

The hunter must use only a lever action rifle chambered in 50 Alaskan. Any other caliber bullet striking the animal(s) while attempting to kill the animal with the lever action 50 Alaskan, the will void the entry.

Any and all evidence of the hunt including field trophy pictures and sworn statements by the hunter, PH and Witnesses will determine the winner.
The decision of the contest judge, Rusty Knight, is final.

If the prize is not taken in the calendar year, 2006, members of the DRSS will drink the prize at the next Dallas Safari Club Convention in 2007.

Go at it lads! The Prize and the Glory await!

quote:

The best we can do is to pool the collective experience of many people, over much time and come up with some general rules of thumb that work most of the time. I think that is approximately what the 2100+fps & .300+ SD & .375+ Caliber numbers really are. They are the distillation of collective experience. They are not absolute. They will not work every time. But they are the best we can do.

using this data the 375-50alaskan or the 375-50-110 can do d.g. and both will work in a lever gun

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6521043/m/203105173

my wildcat thread

I forgot the original question.
Was it whether a lever gun could be used to kill a buffalo, or was it whether the .50 Alaskan would kill a buffalo?

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
I forgot the original question.
Was it whether a lever gun could be used to kill a buffalo, or was it whether the .50 Alaskan would kill a buffalo?

No, the original question was whether anyone here had experience with the .50 Alaskan on 'cape buff or hipps'.

He must have this site confused with a lever-crankers site.

George

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
I predict in the calendar year of 2006, no current member of this forum (as of this posting) will book a Dangerous Game hunt in Africa and kill any of the Big 5 with a 50 Alaskan chambered, lever action rifle.

For any current member of this forum (as of this posting) who does complete such a hunt and does kill one of the Big Five with a lever action rifle chambered in 50 Alaskan, I will donate a prize of one bottle of a Single Malt Scotch Whisky of my choosing!

The hunter must use only a lever action rifle chambered in 50 Alaskan. Any other caliber bullet striking the animal(s) while attempting to kill the animal with the lever action 50 Alaskan, the will void the entry.

Any and all evidence of the hunt including field trophy pictures and sworn statements by the hunter, PH and Witnesses will determine the winner.
The decision of the contest judge, Rusty Knight, is final.

If the prize is not taken in the calendar year, 2006, members of the DRSS will drink the prize at the next Dallas Safari Club Convention in 2007.

Go at it lads! The Prize and the Glory await!

george...my post was in context to this and the other quote i did...not trying to hijack

When I do go to Africa I will be taking a bow and arrow for all game that I hunt. Most likely Buff will be the largest. As far as finding a PH to take a bowhunter, its not hard, many specialize in guiding bowhunters. Zich, I think what happened here is you did not bow to the opinions offered you by the more experienced posters, and as such they were offended. I have been lurking here for a long time, don't post much, mainly because if you aren't one of the "old standbys" here your opinion doesn't count for much.

quote:

Originally posted by Luke Blathewick:
I have been lurking here for a long time, don't post much, mainly because if you aren't one of the "old standbys" here your opinion doesn't count for much.

That is about as ignorant a statement as I've heard here in about, oh, two hours.

If you come here with a preconceived notion (based on nothing but supposition) and resent the fact that it is not shared by others, I think you're here for validation, not discussion.

Too bad you couldn't resist the urge to post here longer.

George

Luke,

As myself and others have posted, its your hunt, or Zick's, use what you want. No issues with that only with the implication that the 50 Alaskan or whatever is some new end all be all. If 19th century ballistics are your thing go for it. Just don't pretend, or argue, that your choice is some 21st century epiphany when even a breif purusal of history reveals otherwise.Likewise a bow.

I like to think that I can pull my own bacon out of a fire if nessecary or the PH's or the trackers. I'm not in the crowd that would be content to have to rely on the PH when things don't go as planned or expected. But its your hunt so have at it.

JPK

Zich6,

Maybe this will be helpfull.Since you take offense even when people agree that your rifle is adequate. And since you don't really seem to interested in hunting. And since you vehmently dissagree that you are looking for validation. And since nobody on this sight no matter how many times you ask has yet used said rifle on DG. Maybe what you are looking for is simply a likeness in tastes in both claibers and rifles. because this has simply become a Ford vs Chevy argument.

May I suggest that you go over to WWW.Thefiringline.com

Talk to Rich Lucibella. As I've mentioned before Rich has killed DG with his marlin he owns a couple of .50 Ak's and has extensive field expereince with them. Though has never killed any African dangerous game with them YET. He is going to Tanzania this summer and will I'm sure bring one of his .50's.

Rich owns and is a moderator on that sight. He is very willing to talk to people and is generally a great guy.

Rich is the real deal he's hunted Africa quite a bit and he loves Marlins and has killed a major buttload of game with them.

He also is very secure in his skills and abilities and does not freak out about a little ribbing in regards to his rifles choices in fact has very good sense of humor. He knows that this is all in good fun.

I truely and sincerely hope that is what you are looking for and that it will be helpfull for you.

sounds like we need more scotch

JPK, understood completely! I wouldn't suggest a bow and arrow is on par with a 375 or 416, nor would I think a 50ak is either (and wouldn't try to convince anyone of that). And as for the PH, I wouldn't consider shooting a buff uhe PH was experienced in taking bowhunters, for my safety and his!

"That is about as ignorant a statement as I've heard here in about, oh, two hours.

If you come here with a preconceived notion (based on nothing but supposition) and resent the fact that it is not shared by others, I think you're here for validation, not discussion.

Too bad you couldn't resist the urge to post here longer.

George"

Not sure that I had a preconcieved notion when I got here George, I was just giving my opinion on something I noticed (or percieved). Sorry you don't want me posting here, but your the moderator, not me.

Luke,

It's nothing personal, George treats all newcomers, with an opinion to post, this way...

Way to go George, you made another friend!

And the poor guy was only on his first post...

Talk about a CONTROL FREAK...

quote:

Originally posted by RHSim:
Luke,

It's nothing personal, George treats all newcomers, with an opinion to post, this way...

Way to go George, you made another friend!

And the poor guy was only on his first post...

Talk about a CONTROL FREAK...

Yes, folks here tend not to let asinine comments stand without challenge. You and Luke both made asinine comments your first order of business. Ergo...

George
P.S. Boom stick, do your mommy and daddy know you are using your computer after 9pm? Shouldn't you be asleep? You do have to get to high school in the morning, you know.

In the interest of all concerned I feel I need to post the following response. . . .

quote:

What this means is that VERY few non-professionals will ever get enough personal experience to know anything. Killing ten buffalo may cause you to form opinions. You may value your experience and opinions. But your opinions are not solid data, and don’t really prove anything. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Another small diamond in the rough! It was worth reading all the puffed up yack yack, just to find it.

come on george that was your scotch...just adding levity to an otherwise cranky thread

mommy and daddy are retired and my mom is in the hospital as i type here so put in a good word to the guy upstairs for her if you please.

good shooting to all

and yes i agree

Non-conformity in DG cartridge selection on this forum is akin to having a sudden urge to run out into high-speed rush hour traffic with the expectation of catching a ride home...

Gurn,

What you quote there is true for the most part. But what is left out is that all popular saying that its not the cartridge that matters but x bullet at x velocity. An x grain, x calibre hard cast bullet at x velocity today will perform the same today as it did in the 19th century. Likewise an x grain x calibre steel jacketed bullet at x velocity. We can rely on the results of the proffesional ivory and meat hunters, not a mere few animals shot by any one of us.

Also ignored is the collective expeience. This is available here. Also the results your PH has observed for years. For example, a couple of months ago someone solicited info on the number of elephants shot by members of the forum. The number exceeded 120. Information drawn from that pool is data.

And I gotta ask, how many times did you spit into the wind before you decided that it wasn't a good idea? Hopefully a small sample. Hopefully not enough to be significant statistically. Still very useful information.

JPK

quote:

What you quote there is true for the most part. But what is left out is that all popular saying that its not the cartridge that matters but x bullet at x velocity. An x grain, x calibre hard cast bullet at x velocity today will perform the same today as it did in the 19th century. Likewise an x grain x calibre steel jacketed bullet at x velocity.

I'm with ya on that part 100%

Gurn,

Since you seem to like popular saying I'll try another one that goes something like this:

A wise man learns from experience.
A really wise man learns from others' experience.

JPK

quote:

Gurn,

What you quote there is true for the most part. But what is left out is that all popular saying that its not the cartridge that matters but x bullet at x velocity. An x grain, x calibre hard cast bullet at x velocity today will perform the same today as it did in the 19th century. Likewise an x grain x calibre steel jacketed bullet at x velocity. We can rely on the results of the proffesional ivory and meat hunters, not a mere few animals shot by any one of us.

Also ignored is the collective expeience. This is available here. Also the results your PH has observed for years. For example, a couple of months ago someone solicited info on the number of elephants shot by members of the forum. The number exceeded 120. Information drawn from that pool is data.

And I gotta ask, how many times did you spit into the wind before you decided that it wasn't a good idea? Hopefully a small sample. Hopefully not enough to be significant statistically. Still very useful information.

JPK

I can also largely agree with your first pgh. I think most here would agree IF, when we say "x", we all mean the same thing (i.e. not all .300 SD bullets are equal - a 500gr hardcast is not the same as a 500gr Barnes solid).

When we begin extrapolating long-term trends from the whole of the hunting community we can derive certain "rules of thumb". For example, I can say with some certainty that a 30-06 is adequate for most deer hunting. I have shot perhaps 25 deer with a 30-06. That is my personal experience. But I could have made the same statement before ever shooting the first deer. The greater hunting community had confirmed this "truth" some time before I was born.

But when I push the edges, "truth" gets more difficult. For example, I have a friend who has killed 8 or 10 elk with a .243 and swears that it is plenty for the task. He is an excellent marksman and only takes high-percentage shots. In his experience, he is convinced that larger guns are not needed (and for the way he hunts, he may be right). But I would be hard pressed to "prove" to anyone that his experience means much of anything. The collective data just isn't there. Few people use .243's for elk, and of those who have, many have seen poor results. My friend's 8 or 10 examples are just not significant.

On these internet boards, people most often argue about the edges . . . the marginal cases. Nobody (or almost nobody) argues that a .500NE is too small for buffalo. And nobody argues that a .243 is adequate for buffalo. Past experience has proven the standing of those two cartridges for buffalo. It's cartridges on the edge that take the most heat. We know that some people have made them "work", but how well, and how often? Has anyone tested them enough to know?

You mention the collective experience of 120 elephant. But how many varibles are included in this sample? How many calibers? What range of bullet types? How many shot angles? What range of elephant weights? By the time you sort out all the variables, about all we will know is that you need a big rifle to hunt big animals. If there is one .308 NATO in the sample, and one .577NE, and they both killed the animal with one shot . . . do we assume they are equal? Obviously we do not. Once again the small sample size has allowed anything to happen.

As for spitting in the wind. If my options are to spit into the wind or with the wind, then my variables are very narrow and a small sample size is adequate. Nearly every time I spit into the wind I get wet. Nearly every time I spit with the wind I stay dry.

But if I am trying to determine exactly how many degrees I have to turn my head away from the oncoming wind in order to stay dry . . . then my problem becomes much more difficult. Zero degrees and I end up wet every time. Five degrees and I get wet 90% of the time. Ten degrees and I get wet 60& of the time. Fifteen degrees and I end up getting wet 70% of the time because the wind started shifting around. Twenty degrees and I only get wet 20% of the time. Twenty-five degrees and I get wet one time in twenty. Thirty degrees and I only get wet 1% of the time.

In this example, I am hard pressed to know where the cutoff is. How gusty is the wind? How many MPH is it blowing? How much do I really mind getting wet if I'm wrong (how much risk can I stand)?

I'm not trying to argue, but I did want to point out that hunting is rife with variables that we simply cannot control for. Therefore, real data is nearly impossible to collect. We can boil the experience of the ages down to "rules of thumb". We can know when we are making really safe choices (30-06 for deer, .500NE for buffalo). But we can never know exactly how adequate marginal weapons really are.

FWIW

Bob

quote:

We can know when we are making really safe choices (30-06 for deer, .500NE for buffalo). But we can never know exactly how adequate marginal weapons really are.

Another one worth the bandwith it was put on!
Finding someone that admits he don't know something! You sir are my hero!

RangerBob,

I'm really sorry that you had to get wet so many times to learn not to spit into the wind.

Now take the comment above and boil it down and apply it to hunting. There is just no need to know that you get wet only 40% of the time at x* off center when you know that you just about never get wet spitting downwind.

Use a 375H&H, it the equivelent of spitting down wind. Use a 500NE and its the equivelent of spitting really hard downwind. Use a 50 Alaskan and you might need a hankercheif to wipe off the spit. We know this in many ways.

JPK

I pulled a couple ballistic stats from the net...

.500 NE 410 Grn 2330 fps.
.50 Alaskan 450 Grn 2150 fps.

I don't see a whole lot of difference.

quote:

Use a 375H&H, it the equivelent of spitting down wind. Use a 500NE and its the equivelent of spitting really hard downwind. Use a 50 Alaskan and you might need a hankercheif to wipe off the spit. We know this in many ways.

Agreed.

But once again, very few argue about the .375 or the .500NE. Its the margins that start the arguements.

RangerBob,

I think the 375H&H is on the margin! It is just above the minimum - talking Zim regs here. The 9.3x68 (.366) is the minimum in both bullet diameter and energy, though the 9.3x62 is often used and doesn't make the energy minimum.

TJ,

The 500NE uses a 570 grain bullet at 2150. Sectional density above .300, at .313 and velocity above 2100fps. The 50 Alaskan can't push this heavy bullet and even a lighter one of 525 grains, about .300 in sd, can only be pushed 1850 or so, doesn't even come close in sectional density or velocity...energy, momentum and therefore penetration and performance. Still the 50 Alaskan is comparable to a couple of 19th century 50 cal BPE rounds and would perform the same, which is to say its light for buff, way too light for ele but the old black powder rounds have been used to kill both.

JPK

My Son did some chrongraph work with the 510 Grn. Kodiak bullet in a .50 Ak. He was getting over 2000 fps with no sign of excess pressure.
We did some poor boy penetration tests. The .50 Ak. bullet penetrated about 16 inches in a spruce log. A 338 Win with 230 Grn. Win Fail Safes penetrated about 10 inches in the same log.
Next spring I'll repeat the test with a 375 H&H and a 458 Win.
I can't find the section density for the .50 Ak. Do you know where that info is available?
Thanks.

Forget the question on sectional density, I found it. Also correct the info from a 510 gr to a 500 gr.
The .50 Ak. 500 grn has a sectional density of .275 according to the info I found.
I've got a box of Kodiak 570 grn bullets. I'll chronograph them and see what I get.
Sorry

TJ, it would be interesting to see what you can turn up.

What type of bullet were the Kodiaks? You will want to be shooting solid non expanding bullets; hard cast might well do it, but flat point monos - max penetration and no coming apart on bone, unfortunatley long for wight and might eat poweder capacity - or Woodleighs - shorter, won't come apart on bone.

JPK

Kodiak bullets are made in Juneau Ak. by Alaska Bullet Works Inc. They are a bonded core bullet. We heard good reports about them.
I've only shot one moose with them, so don't have much experience to draw from. They worked perfectly that time. They make a 500 and 570 grn .510 bullet.
I'm old enough to know that paper ballistics are only a good indication of a cartridge/bullets performance. Real life results may vary.
Side note.....Good bullet info on Beartoothbullets.com site.

TJ,

I shot a Zebra with a Woodleigh bonded 500grain 458 cal bullet at 2090fps, it exited. I used all solids, at my PH's insistence, on buff, also Woodleigh 500 grain 458 cal at 2090. I recovered four, one was a straight on facing shot and the others insurance shots, one at a shalow angle through the spine, one through the spine as the bull was on the ground, and another from between the fron legs and up as the animal was on the ground.

Using my 375 with the Federal 300gr standard velocity TBBC load I recover one from a waterbuck on a hard quartering away shot, and it was just under the skin forward of the off shoulder, one from a wildebeast that entered just behind the onside shoulder and was just under the skin in front of the off shoulder, having wrecked the heart and one from a nearly front on shot at an eland.

All the recovered solids were perfect in shape, all the softs were right out the advertising photos. What struck home was that the bullets didn't exit. For the 50 Alsakan and buff, I'd stick to solids.

My thoughts,

JPK