Mrlexma, I don't believe there is an answer to your question! I've had Cape Buffalo go down to a heart shot with a 375 H&H 300 gr soft point, and have had the exactly same set of cercumstances let a bull run for 300 yds, before going down. I've had Bulls take two or three 480 gr solids right through the shoulders, punching big holes in the heart, and breaking a leg,still go a couple hundred yds! Ive had bulls go down, never to get back up, with one shot through the same area.

I believe that if you hunt very large tough animals, that take exception to being molested by man, you will run the gammot of happenings, no matter the shot placement, or caliber! Certainly, there are chamberings, and quality bullets that are better, for any given sittuation, than others, but none, IMO, are any kind of guarintee! IMO, unless the brain, or spine is hit hard, you may have a job on your hands stopping a large, adrenlin charged animal.

Although my experence is not huge, six buff with .375, .416 and .470 I would say bigger is better.

In my opinion the best shot on buff is through the heart. The buff bleeds out and dies. Hit through the heart with a .375 soft it can take several minutes for the buff to fall over. With a .416 or .470 soft the ones I have shot stumble a few steps and fall over.

Lung shots can be a problem with buff, the first one I shot was with a .416 soft (400gr A-frame) through both lobes of the upper lung and it ran for over a mile before it stoped and was still standing when we reached it. I'm not sure a larger caliber would have helped.

On another a .470 soft (500gr WL) through the lower lung stumbled him and another through the spine finished things. This was a very close shot and the dammage done by the .470 was amazing. He was snorting chunks of lung out the nose and the blood splatter from the initial exit wound was perhaps six feet long...

Brett

Big bores are only as effective as the man who's pressing the trigger. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Townsend Whelen said it all: "The placement of the bullet is everything. The most powerful weapon made will not make up for skill in marksmanship."

In my experience with other shooters, many 'Big-Bore' exponents talk a better game than they play, and somehow can't seem to hit very well with the ultra-powerful big bores thay profess to love with such conviction and passion.

Personal experience: I've killed buffalo very dead and convincingly dead with the .458 Win. Mag. I've also killed them on the spot and without fuss with single spine shots from a .300 Win. Mag. And yeah, I know.....

A few days ago, I worked with a double in .577 NE on targets firing 750 gr. Woodleigh softs @2000 fps., and while accurate and shootable (after a fashion), quite honestly the damned thing was too heavy to carry around (at least for me!) and I detested the recoil and wouldn't want to own a like-specimen that was paid for with my own money......

Quite candidly, I'd rather carry a scoped .375 H&H or .416 Remington for any sort of dangerous game, but that doesn't sound any too 'cricket' (as in "Not quite playing the game Olde Chap..."), does it? But I'm personally more effective and much more practiced with those, as if that counts for anything.......

....But I know, every other cowboy in this-here cow outfit can shoot a big double or monster-size bolt gun with professional, unfailing precision, and just as well as with a Bell-type .275 Rigby.....

Right?

AD

Allen,

I believe that you have a good deal of experience and have seen the MS tape where you spine a buff with your (I think) .300 Win.

With all respect, do you think that over .40 cal is an advantage given same bullet construction and placement on game? I think that is a reasonable question.

Also, why the sarcasm?? There is nothing wrong with a scoped bolt gun. Nothing wrong with a double either if shot within the limits of what it and the guy shooting it can deliver. By the way, I like carring my nine pound .470 better than carring my twelve pound (with scope and full mag) .375 Ruger RSM...

Brett

Brett, to answer your question in the most direct manner possible, yes, I do think that cartridges that are over .40 caliber on dangerous game are better IF the hunter in question can shoot them with sufficient precision, and that means NO SUBCONSCIOUS FLINCH. I've seen a good many shooters who THOUGHT they could (but couldn't)shoot such cartridges well, and that's the reason for the sarcasm.

I also think that most hunter - and I mean the VAST majority - are better off with scoped bolt-guns than with open-sighted doubles. Optical truths, time-of-day logistics, and shot-distance realities come into play in a big way here.

Romance be damned, but yeah, an open-sighted double carries a better stage presence in the minds of some, but even in the 'good ol' days', doubles were used by very few hunters, including many well-known professionals. Then, as now, the true double experts - they guys who could really use them - were few and far between, and scope sights (complete with all their advantages) were almost completely unknown.

Since you brought Sullivan up, even Mark - Mr. Double-Rifle himself - recommends scoped bolt-guns in .375 H&H or better for client use, and for the same reasons I stated.

AD

Allen, thanks for the response. Reasonable and thoughtful answers all.

While we are on this topic I would like to make one other point. There is no substitute for good judgement. I simply won't take a shot - with any rifle - that I'm not confident I can make. I'll bet more game is wounded and lost due to guys taking shots that they know they shoudn't than any other reason, including choice of rifle and caliber.

Best regards;
Brett

To answer the original question...No, I don't think a "big bore" is always going to be more effective than a "medium bore" rifle, given equally good placement.
I've used and seen used the 375Ackley, 416 Rem, 416 Rigby, 458 Lott, 450 Dakota, 460 G&A and 500 Nitro on buffalo. My old hunting partner used the Ackley and Dakota, the rest were mine or my PHs. Bullets were all premiums, in his case the 270gr Barnes X in the 375 and the 450gr X in the Dakota. I've used Swifts and TBBCs in my guns, PHs ammo used Woodleighs.
Shooting from mostly broadside positions at ranges from 25yds to 100yds with shots being placed on the shoulder or just behind, the animals typically run from 25 to 200 yards and collapse. A couple that didn't were dispatched with a finishing shot that knocked them over. Some of these bullets exited, other didn't and were found in the hide on the offside.
I never noticed much difference in the "shock" effect of the 500 over the 416s, but with only seeing it on two occasions that isn't a lot to base an opinion on!
With the abundance of premium bullets available today, I think the average safari client is best served by a scoped 375 or 416 that he can carry all day and handle with greatest precision when the time comes to squeeze the trigger. If someone can truly handle the big bores he will of course be in fine shape as well, but I doubt he'll kill his game any quicker or deader than the guy with a 375 or 416.

Around and around and around we go

Since damn few buff drop to the shot, I doubt any bore has any or much shock effect on buffalo.

Let's see if we extrapolate this,the 470 is no better than the 416 which is no better than the 375 which is no better than a 9.3x62 which is no better than a ....... .22 Long Rifle.

Hey, you can kill buff with a .22. Guys have done it. So what?

Brett and JohnS, thanks for the answers based on empirical observations.

allen and Will, you guys would be serpents in Eden. Or maybe mosquitoes. Didn't ask for and don't want advice about "what rifle is best for dangerous game" or arguments reductio ad absurdum. Allen, you finally state that over 40s are better, but give no concrete reasons or examples. Will, you clearly and strongly imply that bigger is better but are even more indirect in getting there. Your conclusions must be based on experience. All I'm asking is that you share it.

Mac, you may be right that there is no answer to this question, and you are undoubtedly right that there are no guarantees. But, based on your direct experience, if you had a choice betwwen a Big Bore and a Medium or Lower Forty, what would you choose and why?

[ 11-27-2003, 04:45: Message edited by: mrlexma ]

A quote from "But How Much is Enough Gun", an article by "OldSarge" posted here, earlier today that has gone unnoticed:

"How much gun is enough? The normal international hunter will find that a .375 H&H, Queen of Cartridges, will do everything he or she needs. Fran�ois Edmond-Blanc of Paris hunted the world and made over 20 African safaris usually armed with nothing but a pair of them. He never seems to have felt handicapped by using a "mere" Class I. Someone who feels a need for a bit more punch can go to any gun store and order a Winchester M70 in the Class II .416 Remington. Such a individual can feel secure in the
knowledge that not only can he hunt anything on the planet but can back up his friends, too, if things go south. Personally, I am the sort who doesn't think it's a bad idea to wear both a belt and suspenders at times so I like the .450 Rigby. The effect on game of a Class III rifle has to be seen to be appreciated. Craig Boddington agrees allowing, "these things numb buffalo." Frankly, a Class IV rifle is for bragging and anyone who can effectively use one has a lot to brag about. However fearsome the effect on the shooter, make no mistake, these things work. So, how much gun is enough?"

[ 11-27-2003, 04:45: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

mrlexma-
I think what Allen said about the hunter's abilities and his field accuracy has more bearing on the effect from a given caliber than anything else. There are situations when a hunter needs to trust his instincts about making a shot, and when it's a tough call the guy who can "shoot them in the eye" will have it all over the others. There is absolutely no substitute for confidence in one's rifle or his own abilities with that rifle. Caliber to such a person is secondary.

I just don't give a damn, just give me a gun and a pocket full of bullets and let me do my hunting, the rest is gobbledegook...

I have a 9.3x62, 338 Win, a 375 H&H, a 416, a 404, a 470 and just sold a 450-400 and I have shot a lot of Buff with that one..I am happy with any of these and I have used a lot smaller calibers with perfect success but not with the same confidence!

The one thing that I am sure of and that is ALL OF THEM require good bullet placement.. As the English gunnery sargent said, "Gunnery, Gunnery, hit the bloody target all else is twaddle, Medford!" Truer words were never spoken.

So why, then, not just use a .22 long Rifle?

Shot placement is the only thing that counts

Given proper shot placement and good premium bullets, the bigger bores should show an advantage over the long haul. Whether or not they do is something that has been debated for years, even by the pros. Look at what Wally Johnson, John Lawrence and Harry Selby used...375 and 416s. Other well known pros used/use 458s and 470s, etc.
To answer your question about wasting money...that will be for you to decide after having the rifles and hunting with them. I traveled this path of lust for a big 50 myself, seeking the "ultimate" in a big bore. I built a 500 A-Square about 10 years ago and after much range time I decide I had wasted my money! For me, the recoil was too much until I had the gun weighing 13.5 pounds....and then it was too damned heavy to carry! That taught me a very valuable lesson.

[ 11-27-2003, 06:41: Message edited by: John S ]

It's that weight/recoil balance that makes me prefer a Class III. You don't go out with one to the range, wrap yourself around it on the bench and blaze off 20 rounds the first day unless you are either brain-dead or suffering from some sort of psychopathology. You sight it in using as many sand bags as needed and using as few shots as possible. Then you get the Hell off the bench! IMO too many shooters give themselves the Mother of All Flinches because they are drugged into believing that bench-rest accuracy is necessary in a DGR. Poppycock. If once you are sighted in, you shoot off sticks or some sort of other STANDING rest and never try to let fly with more than 5 rounds per day, you can easily get used to a .450 Rigby/Dakota/Lott/etc. in about six weeks. The rifle will only weigh about 10 1/4 lbs empty but that is enough to absorb recoil without being too heavy to lug across the veldt. Now, as to real-world experience. I have only shot one buffalo, so far, and that was a CNS dropper. My buddy, on the other hand, did the perfect "lethal triangle" shot and the critter still dropped at the shot. Now I must admit he did get back up again, but that was one sick, wobbly, mbogo. A Class I or II cartridge wouldn't have had quite the stunning effect, I believe. Do smaller ones work just fine? Sure. Especially when "well-placed". However, animals aren't always so cooperative as to stand perfectly still for your perfect placement. Sometimes they move just as you are squeezing the trigger. THAT'S the time bigger is better. Not for a wild shot somewhere at the target but for those occasions when, through no fault of your own, the shot is just a little bit off. When that happens, the extra power is greatly appreciated.

mrlexma, you wanted no BS, and I gave you just that - no BS. I sited my personal .458 and .300 episodes (on buffalo) to illustrate my key point, that bullet placement is more important than cartridge selection. Sure, nearly everyone shoots better with a .243 Win. than with a .416 Rigby, but just as obviously, the .243 is no buffalo cartridge, while the .416 surely is. So I'm talking about reasonable cartridge selection, not stuntsmanship.

Every professional hunter I've known or discussed this topic with has stated that buffalo (DG in general) cartridges begin with the .375 H&H and go up from there. Most think that the .416s are decidedly more effective than the .375. Most also stated that the .458s, et al, are better yet, IF the client can shoot them with skill and without fear. If not, the .375 H&H will surely do.

I also think that RIFLE selection is more important than cartridge selection. A rifle that is properly balanced, handles well, is not overly heavy, and is expertly stocked to minimize the effects of recoil is the rifle to choose. For example, I've handled some A-Square rifles that were chambered for some absolute blockbuster cartridges, cartridges that would surely do-in a brontosaurous with dispatch. Yet, in my opinion, these rifles were just about as ungainly and ill-engineered as a rifle could be built, clubby, and far too heavy for me to hunt with for anything. I don't care how powerful a cartridge this brand of club is chambered for, I'd take something like a Biesen-stocked .375 H&H any day of the week for any sort of dangerous game hunting.

Following my own logic into the present, besides a .338 Win. Mag., I'll be taking an Echols-built Model 70 in .416 Remington to Tanzania next season for a 28-day hunt. The .416 is earmarked for buffalo, hippo, lion, and - if we get lucky in the Selous - elephant. This .416 is a rifle I can really shoot with confidence, and it' one of my favorite guns. It's built for absolute function, accuracy, reliability, durability, and optimum handling. And it delivers on all counts. No, it's not chambered for the biggest cartridge out there, but it's a REASONABLE cartridge that balances power, portability, and shootability very well. For my purposes as a client, this gun's enough for dangerous game.

I've owned disfunctional, clunker big bores before, and will vouch with all conviction that great-big cartridges are also of little value if they're chambered in a rifle that fundamentally doesn't work.....

AD

[ 11-27-2003, 18:46: Message edited by: allen day ]

"Are Big Bores Better?" is the question.

YES ... and not just in Africa.

I think that with the proper bullet and equal shot placement, the bigger bore is better. After all the bigger the hole in the animal the qyicker he bleeds. Also big heavy bullets break bigger bones. Think of it as an insurance policy.
So my answer to THE question is YES.

Since many of you have "brought it up" I will address the "secondary question". Which is, the human element, which was not part of the original question.
A man has got to know his limitations.
If the biggest rifle someone can shoot is a 243 they have no business hunting buff, etc.
If you are going to hunt big game, you owe it to the safety of those around you and the animal hunted to use an adequate rifle.
I've seen buff killed with one shot with a 300 Win Mag, and a 375 H&H. I have also seen a buff take 3 good hits from a 600 Nitro and show no little sign of being hit until the third shot. [I saw it on the TV ]. This is the variable MacD37 spoke of.
Still, while a big bore "should" be better, it will be so only if well handled.
So our next question should be "How big a rifle can you handle."
Make your claim, but be careful, you might be asked to prove it at Rusty's next double rifle shoot. [Heck he might even let some of you BBBAT* show up.

*BBBAT= Big Bore Bolt Action Trash

[ 11-27-2003, 20:09: Message edited by: N E 450 No2 ]

Thanks, gents.

Now, let me ask a slightly different question. How much bigger is how much better?

Using Oldsarge's very practical classification system, I have hit 'em with a Class I (.375 H&H Mag. @ 4,200 ft./lbs.) and hit 'em with a Class III (.458 Lott @ 5,800 ft./lbs.). And I didn't notice a world of difference--again, with good recoil management, good shot placement and good bullets.

So, all you Class IV types out there (e.g., shooters of the big and the bad, the .460 Wby., .470 Mbogo, .475 A&M, .500 A-Square, .577 NE, .577 T-Rex, .585 Nyati, .600 NE, .700 NE)--did you notice a measurable, order of magnitude difference in killing power as compared to Class Is, Class IIs or Class IIIs?

Next time (or the time after next, depending on whether I really want that roan antelope), and God and my shoulder willing, I'm going to use one or both of two Class IVs (a .500 A-Square @ 7,000 ft./lbs. ME and a .550 Mag. @ 8,000 ft./lbs. ME) on the biggest old buff I can find. I need to learn most things for myself. But I'm always interested in learning from the experiences, and the mistakes , of others.

For this question, as with the original question, all of the same terms and conditions apply--good recoil management, good shot placement and good bullets. That is, no variables are at play here but sheer power.

Please only answer if you've done it, and done it right, with a Class IV and a lesser class cartridge as well.

And also, please don't post your best or only answers on the African Hunter forum, either. There's an amazing phenomenon going on over there. Some of you are amazingly forthcoming at AH, as compared with your reticence here on AR. So, let's hear it from those of you who've done it, and let's hear about it here if you please.

[ 11-30-2003, 04:38: Message edited by: mrlexma ]

From the experiences I've had over the years I would say (assuming the original terms & conditions apply) that bigger is better and the most marked difference I've seen is between the .375 H&H and the various 416s.

Other factors that need to be considered are can the client shoot the larger calibre without flinching and is the animal aware of you're presence before the shot. This makes a huge difference (especially with Buffalo) on whether they will die quickly or not.

Another factor that I often wonder about is whether things alter in regard in speed of death as to what the heart is actually doing at the millisecond of the bullet penetrating it. Whilst I have no proven knowledge of how it works, I wonder if when the bullet hits that particular chamber of the heart when it is sucking in blood (or momentarily at rest?) it might not have as dramatic an effect as when it is pumping blood out of the chamber under pressure, as might this then cause the heart to bleed out into the chest cavity faster. Certainly I've seen some hearts that simply have a bullet hole through them and others that have been split the whole length of the organ........ don't know if I've phrased that well or not and maybe it's just a crap theory, but hopefully we'll have a veterinary surgeon with some kind of (mammal) cardiac experience who might be able to shed some light on this.

[ 11-30-2003, 10:40: Message edited by: shakari ]

I know I am a little late to jump on this bandwagon,but here is my humble opinion on the matter,based on my experiences.I also believe that the best rifle for a client is a scoped .375 or .416 or thereabouts,whatever he can handle well as bullet placement is paramount.I agree too that the size of the hole in the vitals matters,but the effect is variable,depending on how quick the internal bleeding is.Where the difference comes in is in penetration on angling or direct coming or going shots.Obviously bigger heavier bullets penetrate deeper.The most important aspect for me however is knockdown power on charging buffalo,or you might want to call it stunning ability.I have knocked one charging bull down with a shot below the brain through the nose,with a 458[handloads]it fell,actually somersaulted,stood up again,but gave me chance for a second shot.Another bull was downed in the same way by a shot through the boss using my 450Watts.I also downed a charging cow with a shot through the nose using the same rifle.I unwitingly used the same nose shot on another charging cow with a 416Rem now recently in Tanzania.I know,the ladies just dont like me.The effect was none,I jumped,tripped out the way and she ran over me.I have also witnessed two other bungled headshots with a 375 and 416 that had the same effect by other PH,s I know where youre supposed to shoot them,but trust me when it all goes down in a couple of seconds you shoot for the middle of the black ,fast approaching object!So there is my two cents worth.HI Saeed,Ray and Jim,you will know who wrote this.
Richard Lemmer

richard lemmer,

Welcome to the forum.

As always, we are very happy to see another PH join our forum.

If you just graph the relationship between caliber (X-axis) and effectiveness (Y-axis) on dangerous game, starting at .223 and going up through .600 you would get a curve that shows that bigger is always better. However, the marginal improvement would diminish as the bore gets bigger with the low end of the curve going up steeply and the big bore end relatively flat.

In between...right around .375, would be the "knee of the curve"...the point where the marginal improvement drops off pretty quickly. Hence, the great reputation of the 375 H&H.

So, big bore ARE more effective...just not as much as one would think.

Sorry to inject a theoretical response...quite against the rules...but most really good questions like yours involve a graph with this shape. Its as old as how much money or horsepower do you need...

I'm flabbergasted by the number of guys who care not whether they're shot through the ass cheeks with a .375 or a .505, as it makes no difference.
I diff to begger.

Where did this business of Class I, II, III and IV originate? Can I find the breakdown on the web anywhere? I guess a .22 LR is a Class V minus.

Hello Richard ! You dam right I know who you are Good to see you here have a great new Year & watch thoes dam cows.
Just Jim

/

Vigilinus,
Check out the thread "But how much gun is enough . . .?" for my thoughts on the classification of Dangerous Game cartridges. And in response to your last question, a .22 Long Rifle counts as a Class .0001!

As for real world experience - personal tally so far with my 7.62 Nato - over 100 buffalo, and two elephant. With a 9,3x62 41 one shot kills on buff and six elephant. One wounded elephant dropped cleanly with my 7x57.

Failures on elephant 2- one with a .458 and one with a .458 Lott. (Bullet failure and compressed powder trouble - animals finished off with something smaller.)

Used a .375 for buff for a short while with every satisfaction.

That said, a .505 gibbs flattens a buffalo so much more spectacularly than a .375 you have to see it to appreciate it.

On our elephant culls (which I attended as the research officer) a .470 .500NE, or even a .458 Lott putts an elephant down so much more quickly than even a regular .458. In thick cover, where you may easily only be able to see for a shot at a range of a couple of paces, the margin of safety offered by a big bore is very significant.

Also, the culling officers started with a heavy to ensure that thelead cows went down for sure and then swithched to a .30 cal for the rest. Out of 16000 elephant, Clem recons he has shot 7-800 with a big bore and the rest with a .30-06 or a 7.62x54R, but if you need an animal down for sure, use a big bore.

Brother, ain't that the truth.

Alf,
Please forward a copy of that article. I'm in need of a new colander for my spaghetti. Thanks.

Ganyana - "That said, a .505 gibbs flattens a buffalo so much more spectacularly than a .375 you have to see it to appreciate it."

End of story!

Nickudu,

Oh no, this is not the end of the story.

What if you where riding a buffalo on it's back, backwards, carrying a 45-70 loaded with hard cast 338.245 gr. lead bullets on top of 5768 grs. of 5768 powder, riding up hill at a gallop, during a full moon, and stuck the carbine up the bulls arse?

I have found complete penetration in these cases, when the bullet velocity was less than 27.8475 ft/s.

As I get on in age and my deltoids evaporate, I realize my .505 will no longer be in the cards. Then, happily resigned to the .416, you'll never ... Ever .. hear me state, imply, intimate, suggest or generally infer, that caliber doesn't matter.

Now a .416 is as good as a .505?

I'm out of here.

Will ... and all this time I thought you a retired Professor of English!?

shakari, richard lemmer and Ganyana--Many thanks for sharing your hard-earned and extensive knowledge on this subject. There is no substitute for experience and I do appreciate your willingness to share yours.

ALF--Since a hand grenade or an RPG is out of the question, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Will--I'm afraid I'm going to have to consign your scenario of riding and arse-shooting a cape buffalo to the "way too theoretical" category--unless, of course, you have pictures to prove you did it. On second thought, I don't think I want to see those pictures even if you have them.

Nick--As for your deltoids, well . . . if you've ever seen a picture of a scrawny, sunken-chested, sickly looking old man named John Buhmiller, who shot dozens if not hundreds of elephant and buffalo with the biggest standard and wildcat big bores obtainable back in the '50s and '60s--and in some cases using lathe turned monometal bullets--I think it would boost your spirits and give you hope.

I'll have to go with the consensus here, which appears to be that bigger is better and really bigger is really better--assuming good bullets and good shot placement, of course.