Buffybr--

It sounds like there is more to that story about a PH who shot a waterbuck in the foot. Did anyone notice a branch with a raw bruise?

One thing that we can assume is that a bonafide PH is not going to flinch so bad from a little 375 that they shoot a foot.

However, what would really be helpful is a description of the wound channel from the first chest shot. It was apparently reasonably placed, but it didn't seem to stop the animal. do you suppose that a 338-375-416 in the same position might have stopped the waterbuck? That is what usually leads experienced hunters to gravitate to larger calibres.

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
Back to the original topic, I just ordered 200 of the new 150g Accubond Long Range bullets for my 270 Weatherby. I'm thinking of them as an antelope, deer, sheep bullet, but really want to put the rifle through it's paces at the local range where we have targets out 1000 yards (I don't shoot at game past 500 yards myself). At 3300 fps with a BC of .625 these bullets should be interesting. I'm taking my tried and true 500 Jeffery elk hunting this year, hopefully it will be enough gun even for Elmer!

Just here recently retured from SA using ABLR in my .270wea for springbok and Warthog. They Work!. Shot a springbok a 398meters. The ABLR is not an elk bullet in.277cal. They are expan too much. The Warthog I shot at aprox 200meter weighed about 50kgs and I had no exit. The springboks I shot all had large exit wounds..much larger than a Partitionbullet of same caliber and weight.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
FYI, The NRA doesn't pay for anybody's hunts. The President and all of the board of directors are unpaid volunteers.

While that may be true, you and I don't believe for a second that most or really any of these hunts that professional gun writers participate in and feature in magazine articles are full retail priced or invoiced.

Barnes sponsors this portion, Leopold this portion, Remington there and Mossy Oak here.

It'd be a little hard for me to believe that the NRA doesn't,.......uh,........"contribute"? for the bills on some of the hunts their staff writers participate in. Yeah maybe the African outfits or the Alaskan outfits just pony up a 100% donated hunt in order to have their contact info mentioned in those cute little side bar paragraphs, but then again, do the outfitters pay for the plane tickets, taxidermy, dip and pack etc,...?

I'm not complaining and am very happy to have the NRA in all its evolutions making sure I can enjoy what I do, but please,....with the exception of Phil Shoemaker, lets not attribute beneficence where it ain't applicable. These writers write to generate revenue. Controversy, (true or not,) sells papers.

As usual we have people on here posting information that they just made up in their own mind, but really don't have a clue about what they are posting about. No wonder the internet has such a bad reputation for unreliable information.

Even more usual is the anonymous posters making unsubstantiated assertions regarding off topic innuendo. Although I've delved deeply off topic,at least my name is known.

I'm not much of a last word freak either so the floor is yours.

416, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread to my African hunt, just tried to use it as an example to show that a smaller bullet put in an animals vitals is more effective than a larger bullet shot into a non-vital place.

Over the years I have found deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk that were limping from fresh gunshot wounds in their legs and feet.

Anyone can pull a shot or miss for a variety of reasons. Most people will shoot lighter kicking guns better than they will guns with heavy recoil.

I think more hunters would do better elk hunting with cartridges smaller than .300 Winchester than they would with cartridges larger than .300 Winchester

Regardless of what caliber a person chooses to hunt with most people would be better off spending more time at the range!

quote:

Originally posted by 460 wby shooter:
Regardless of what caliber a person chooses to hunt with most people would be better off spending more time at the range!

Yes, I would much prefer an accurate 270 to a sloshing 338. OTH, the 338 is pretty easy to get used to, but that means time at the range.

On the waterbuck, a 7mm in the chest that took five days to find starts to say "under-gunned" to me. Admittedly, everything is a matter of percentages and margin advantages.
the PH shot is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

quote:

On the waterbuck, a 7mm in the chest that took five days to find starts to say "under-gunned" to me. Admittedly, everything is a matter of percentages and margin advantages.

Perhaps simply the wrong bullet construction and/or weight.

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
Most people will shoot lighter kicking guns better than they will guns with heavy recoil....

I think more hunters would do better elk hunting with cartridges smaller than .300 Winchester...

Jacks wife Eleanor, took some 17 big game heads in Africa using 7x57, [was more tolerable for her to fire than .270win]
She use .30/06 to take elephant....she also was very successfully on a whole range of game species in the US, again using 7x57.

> Mr. Whelen, Warren Page and numerous others also reliably took elk, moose, and all manner of African plains game with calibre's ranging from
.270, 7mm, and .30cal....
> Hemingway employed his favourite .30/06 to take rhino ,cape buff, etc.... his wife Mary, hunted Africa with 6.5mm Mannlicher.
Ernest also had 6.5mm Mannlicher of his own, for use in Africa.
> Young teenage Mark Selby never seemed to be underguuned on African game, His father Harry reporting that 7x57 did everything that was expected of it,
on a wide range of Non-DG.,..
> while young teen Gail Selby took a bull ele with same 7x57 solid.
> Other hunters who have owned that particular .275 bore since,have also taken it on safari,and achieved the same highly successful results.
> Gerard from GSC bullets in SA, says his 7x57 with mono metals performs just fine on the likes of Kudu and variety other game.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

On the waterbuck, a 7mm in the chest that took five days to find starts to say "under-gunned" to me. Admittedly, everything is a matter of percentages and margin advantages.
the PH shot is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps simply the wrong bullet construction and/or weight.

Bingo! The bullet was a 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip. And it wasn't the best shot placement for African PG. The bullet hit just behind the Waterbucks shoulder and about half way up in the body -- but it was not far enough back to have been in the paunch.

When we did kill the bull, we found that my first bullet had completely passed through the animal leaving a 1 1/2" exit wound just behind his off shoulder, and he had licked the entrance and exit wounds clean.

In my defense...
It was me first African hunt, and back then I didn't own a computer so I didn't have access to that wealth of information.

At that time, I was going through a very nasty divorce, and I didn't have access to my guns. The 7mm RM that I used was borrowed from a friend, and I also only had very limited time and components to develop a load for it.

On that same hunt and with those same 140 gr BT bullets, I also made a one shot DRT kill on a Blue Wildebeest, and both my Kudu bull and Gemsbok bull fell dead within 30 yards from where they were shot.

Also, the shot by the PH was completely relevant to the discussion, as the reason that I posted that story was that I was trying to make the point that "a small caliber bullet shot into the vitals of an animal (my second 7mm bullet shot through the shoulder and into the lungs) is better than a large caliber bullet shot into a non-lethal part of the animal (the .375 bullet in the waterbucks foot)."

The only thing irrelevant to the story was who shot the .375 bullet. But that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:we found that my first bullet had completely passed through the animal leaving a 1 1/2" exit wound just behind his off shoulder, and he had licked the entrance and exit wounds clean.

did it look like it would have survived had you not caught up with it?

quote:

did it look like it would have survived had you not caught up with it?

Just to derail this particular question a small bit. In the Fall of 2011, as my boss and I were going out to check one of his properties, we passed by a wheat field and there were three doe white tails grazing in it.

Now, the interesting part was, one of these does had a large orange plastic cattle tag in its right ear. Now what made this so interesting was that in 2007 or 2008 a former friend had a hunting lease less than 1/2 mile north of where this doe was feeding, and which ever season it was, he had stuck an arrow thru the chest cavity of a white tail doe with an orange cattle tag in her right ear.

Lora and I were in his camp the day it happened, I saw the blood covered arrow and helped try to sort out the blood trail, but we never found that doe.

This deer was not an escapee from a high fence place, because there is not any high fenced places with in miles of where these events took place.

The point I am trying to make is, on most game animals, if a person looks at any of the schematic anatomical drawings that various people have produced. When standing normally and with the body organs in their normal positions, there is a gap, not huge, but a gap, between the top of the lungs and the spine that a well constructed bullet or arrow can go thru, without harming the lungs or the spine. The most that might happen is one possibly 2 broken ribs, one on impact one on exit, and with a wound like that, unless infection sets in an animal can survive such a hit.

I wonder how he thought of Bow hunting? Just killed a nice Bull with a bow so of course a .270 will work. It's all about shot placement. We are talking 80 ft/lbs of energy with my bow roughly......

Archery is pretty tough though I would have given anything to have a .270

That said I have killed a few with .300 WM and .338. Very effective with proper placement. A .505 gibbs will wound an elk with a gut shot

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:we found that my first bullet had completely passed through the animal leaving a 1 1/2" exit wound just behind his off shoulder, and he had licked the entrance and exit wounds clean.

did it look like it would have survived had you not caught up with it?

My guess would be yes, I think he would have survived. He had licked the wounds clean, and when we found him, he was running normally with his cows.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
The point I am trying to make is, on most game animals, if a person looks at any of the schematic anatomical drawings that various people have produced. When standing normally and with the body organs in their normal positions, there is a gap, not huge, but a gap, between the top of the lungs and the spine that a well constructed bullet or arrow can go thru, without harming the lungs or the spine.

This is what I thought happened.

I would hunt Elk with my 6.5-06 and 120 grains Barnes TTSX bullets any day and feel totally confident about killing any Elk with a clean one shot kill.

I have tracked plenty of wounded animals with my tracking dogs for other hunters to not think that heavy calibers are the solution for bad hits.

Earlier I used my 9.3x62 when tracking wounded animals and now I use my 375 Ruger.
The reason for that is that I want to take any shots to put down a wounded animal.
And that includes shots I would never consider to take on a healthy animal, no matter what cartridge I hunt with.

I shoot my 375 Ruger plenty well enough and I take it with me on regular hunts now and then.
Not because I think I need that heavy cartridge, but just for the fun of it.
Like last week when I shot a Roe deer fawn with it.

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
416, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread to my African hunt, just tried to use it as an example to show that a smaller bullet put in an animals vitals is more effective than a larger bullet shot into a non-vital place.

Over the years I have found deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk that were limping from fresh gunshot wounds in their legs and feet.

Anyone can pull a shot or miss for a variety of reasons. Most people will shoot lighter kicking guns better than they will guns with heavy recoil.

I think more hunters would do better elk hunting with cartridges smaller than .300 Winchester than they would with cartridges larger than .300 Winchester

This rationale drives me crazy. If someone wants to shoot a smaller caliber that's fine. But to say a smaller round makes a hunter more accurate is bologna. . . Not practicing and then taking an iffy shot leads to wounded game getting away.
Its no great trick to shoot a 375 as accurately as a 223 . In big game hunting situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
416, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread to my African hunt, just tried to use it as an example to show that a smaller bullet put in an animals vitals is more effective than a larger bullet shot into a non-vital place.

Over the years I have found deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk that were limping from fresh gunshot wounds in their legs and feet.

Anyone can pull a shot or miss for a variety of reasons. Most people will shoot lighter kicking guns better than they will guns with heavy recoil.

I think more hunters would do better elk hunting with cartridges smaller than .300 Winchester than they would with cartridges larger than .300 Winchester

This rationale drives me crazy. If someone wants to shoot a smaller caliber that's fine. But to say a smaller round makes a hunter more accurate is bologna. . . Not practicing and then taking an iffy shot leads to wounded game getting away.
Its no great trick to shoot a 375 as accurately as a 223 . In big game hunting situations.

I have to 100% disagree

A vast amount of hunters.....VAST!

Will shoot lower recoil rounds more accurately.....simple human traits apply here

From what I've seen most hunters can't shoot once you take their rests and props away. Those that can, can usually shoot anything well.

Recoil is just one part of shooting, and a not very important one.

I agree with ted thorn on this.
I have seen plenty of people being recoil shy.
Also competition shooters that do very well with a 308 having their accuracy rapidly deteriorate when they try to shoot something that kicks more.

Some of us can shoot a gun that kicks a lot well, but most do better with a 6.5x55, 270, 308 or a 30-06 and those cartridges are by far the best choice for the majority of hunters when hunting, deer, Elk or Moose.

Unless people want to use an abomination like a muzzle break on their gun.

I have seen plenty of hunters that tries to compensate bad shooting skills with a heavy hitting cartridge and I have done some tracking jobs after shots they have taken that proved that their big gun didn't compensate for their poor shooting skills.
Rather the opposite.

quote:

I have seen plenty of people being recoil shy.
Also competition shooters that do very well with a 308 having their accuracy rapidly deteriorate when they try to shoot something that kicks more.

I personally believe a piss poor fitting stock has far more to do with the shooter being recoil shy than the actual caliber being fired.

And I’ll use myself as an example…
A few years ago I had the chance to shoot a number of Michael458’s on the same day:
416 B&M with AI walnut stock, iron sights and Leupold 1-4x20 rifle scope, 21” barrel – 8 ½ lb weight
458 B&M with Winchester Ultimate stock, iron sights, 18” barrel – 6 ½ lb weight
458 B&M with AI walnut stock, iron sights, 18” barrel – 7 ½ lb weight
50 B&M with AI walnut stock, iron sights, 18” barrel – 7 ¾ lb weight

The LOP for all four rifles was about an inch short of what I needed while wearing a thin short sleeve shirt covering a thin tee shirt. The recoil from these rifles was not sever though it was a sharp-quick recoil due to short barrels (18”-21”) and using fast powders (for 100% burn rate) to the velocities ranging from approx. 2600fps with 300gr .416 bullets up through 2150fps with 500gr .500 bullets from rifles weighing under 7 ¾ lbs total weight.

With the above said – I actually dreaded shooting either of these 458 B&M rifles for a simple reason, both stocks had narrow combs that dug into my cheekbone with every shot; the AI stock actually felt a bit sharper than the synthetic. I fired 6 shots total between the two rifles and dreaded every shot after the initial shot.

Inversely, the 416 B&M and 50 B&M AI walnut stocks had nice rounded combs that kept the stocks from digging into my cheekbone resulting in a thoroughly enjoyable time with these two rifles. I fired more than 25 shots from each rifle; the .416 out to 325yds using the scope and the .500 out to 200yds with iron sights.

I also fired two .375 H&H chambered rifles along with a 450 NE chambered rifle – all were thoroughly enjoyable to shoot and all had nice rounded combs as well as LOP’s very usable to my hot weather upper wear…

And to bring things more into the medium bore world…
I’ve owned a number of 30-06 chamber rifles over the years but the most memorable experience was with a friends Springfield with its sporterized military stock. I fired two shots from that rifle and would never touch it again because it felt like my cheek was going to be ripped from my head with every shot due to a razor thin comb. Again nothing to do with felt recoil on the shoulder – it was solely the comb trying its best to rip my cheekbone from my face.

About four years later I purchased/ordered a Ruger #1 in .243 Winchester. The .243 Winchester certainly isn’t known for being a “heavy recoiling cartridge” but after having fired 15 shots over a couple of hours while working the rifle in, I noticed a slight bruising at the edge of my cheekbone. Then I identified the comb digging into my cheekbone when firing shot #16 ‘cause it definitely hurt. Needless to say that rifle didn’t stay around very long.

These days, I’m far less concerned with the rifle’s caliber/cartridge combo as I’ll 1st identify how rounded the comb is and 2nd to the LOP. The 2nd is easily dealt with whereas the 1st becomes quickly expensive.

These days I’ll not own, nor shoot, a rifle or shotgun possessing a narrow comb – well except for the 22lr – but otherwise it’s not worth the potential mental or physical aggravation…

quote:

I personally believe a piss poor fitting stock has far more to do with the shooter being recoil shy than the actual caliber being fired.

A poor fitting stock definitely is a problem, but poor fit takes on several aspects. Too much drop at the heel, thin narrow comb as you mentioned, too short a LOP to name a few.

A rifle that is too light for the caliber is also a bad combination.

quote:

Originally posted by Norwegianwoods:

I have seen plenty of hunters that tries to compensate bad shooting skills with a heavy hitting cartridge
and I have done some tracking jobs after shots they have taken that proved that their big gun didn't compensate
for their poor shooting skills.
Rather the opposite.

People that cannot properly handle their rifle and choice of hunting cartridge has been going on for many decades
and it wont stop anytime soon.

Selby spoke of clients from 60 yrs ago that completely missed elephant with their big bore SxS
and PHs of today still give accounts of recent clients who have completely missed elephant [from 5yd] with their big-bore.

Selby and other experienced PHs of his time, noted that clients often shot better and killed more efficiently with
the lower recoiling .375HH.
they knew this by the far less incidences of PH tracking duties that they were each personally required to conduct on wounded DG
when guiding clients over the hunting seasons.

Its just 'amazing' what a smaller-lighter-lower powered-proper construction bullet can do, -when placed in the correct spot.

Id rather have someone beside me who can put a suitable 7mm bullet to the brain or .375 bullet in the vitals,
than someone who ineptly puts a .458+ size pill completely past the whole animal, or worse still, into another human being nearby.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

I have seen plenty of people being recoil shy.
Also competition shooters that do very well with a 308 having their accuracy rapidly deteriorate when they try to shoot something that kicks more.

I personally believe a piss poor fitting stock has far more to do with the shooter being recoil shy than the actual caliber being fired.

I totally agree that having a well fitting stock is very important.
Both to shoot well and to reduce the effect of the recoil.

This is something I "preach" to all at the shooting range when I see that they have a poorly fitted stock.
And I have fixed the stock for plenty of people.
The plastic and composite stocks that are on many of the guns people buy these days, make it much more difficult to modify the stocks to fit the owner better.
I am buying a new gun for my girlfriend these days and I will make sure that it has a wooden stock as I know I will need to modify it to fit her perfectly.

But still there are plenty of people that never manage to shoot a cartridge above a certain recoil level well, no matter how well the stock fits.
An example is a friend of mine.
He is a competition shooter, both with shotguns and rifles and he does very well in both.
I promise you that he makes very sure that he has perfectly fitting guns for himself.
Still he clearly admits that his accuracy quickly deteriorates when he shoots anything heavier than a 308 win.
Even if the gun fits him perfectly.

Personally I have yet to shoot a gun with a well fitting stock that makes my accuracy suffer.
But I have not shot anything above a 460 Weatherby.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
416, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread to my African hunt, just tried to use it as an example to show that a smaller bullet put in an animals vitals is more effective than a larger bullet shot into a non-vital place.

Over the years I have found deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk that were limping from fresh gunshot wounds in their legs and feet.

Anyone can pull a shot or miss for a variety of reasons. Most people will shoot lighter kicking guns better than they will guns with heavy recoil.

I think more hunters would do better elk hunting with cartridges smaller than .300 Winchester than they would with cartridges larger than .300 Winchester

This rationale drives me crazy. If someone wants to shoot a smaller caliber that's fine. But to say a smaller round makes a hunter more accurate is bologna. . . Not practicing and then taking an iffy shot leads to wounded game getting away.
Its no great trick to shoot a 375 as accurately as a 223 . In big game hunting situations.

I think maybe some of the bologna in Eastern Alaska may have fermented...

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
I wonder how he thought of Bow hunting? Just killed a nice Bull with a bow...
We are talking 80 ft/lbs of energy with my bow roughly......

Archery is pretty tough though...

I truly admire the effort and skill of a good bow hunter.
Since the convenience of modern centrefire has helped many hunters avoid developing such discipline.

..and so what if a bow hunter is backed-up by rifle, If guide or PH is required to anchor and secure ones animal,
then the client really has little credit for the finished job, regardless of what style weapon he was using when he messed-up.

One could have hunted with Selby using a monster .600NE for everything,
but Selby would have still confidently & capably used his trusty .416 to correct any mess-ups you made with it.
Had one hunted with Taylor or Bell, they would clean-up ones .600cal mistakes,each with their favourite .350Rigby and 7x57,respectively...

I had a discussion with the PH's over cocktails about what they thought about hunting DG with a bow. Definite consensus was a stunt. Being backed up by a rifle kinda indicates an "issue" if something goes wrong. I have no desire except "maybe" a bear and self backed up. I like using big bores too much to look like a fool hunting Buff or Elephant with a bow. I know you can kill one but.....An elk if wounded will generally not try and horn and toss then stomp you into a pile of goo....

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
I wonder how he thought of Bow hunting? Just killed a nice Bull with a bow...
We are talking 80 ft/lbs of energy with my bow roughly......

Archery is pretty tough though...

I truly admire the effort and skill of a good bow hunter.
Since the convenience of modern centrefire has helped many hunters avoid developing such discipline.

..and so what if a bow hunter is backed-up by rifle, If guide or PH is required to anchor and secure ones animal,
then the client really has little credit for the finished job, regardless of what style weapon he was using when he messed-up.

One could have hunted with Selby using a monster .600NE for everything,
but Selby would have still confidently & capably used his trusty .416 to correct any mess-ups you made with it.
Had one hunted with Taylor or Bell, they would clean-up ones .600cal mistakes,each with their favourite .350Rigby and 7x57,respectively...

And a rifle like a bow shot placement most important than caliber etc.

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
And a rifle like a bow shot placement most important than caliber etc.

I recall a highly capable bow hunter by the name of Ian Fenton,.. he put two arrows through a brown* snakes head from 12yd(IIRC),
...then we have hunters completely missing elephants from 5yd with a big bore...........go figure..


(*)Yes, I do consider the highly aggressive natured:-:worlds second most venomous land snake:-:which can travel at frightening speed,
to be genuine DG... Youtube

Ive been in salt croc,water buff and scrub bull territory on my own,didn't find it concerning at all, I view such snakes as much higher potential threat for several good reasons.
- in part because of their stealth & aggressive nature,their low visual profile & comparatively small target area..made even more difficult by their speed!

IF anyone here knows a recreational hunter who can consistently bang-kill-sTop- such a snake with their DG 'stopping' rifle , let me know...

Trax,

I will do it every time with my .22 LR.
Have done it many a time as a kid, long before licenses were such an issue.

Santa Claus

Well there you go, someone who can bang-flop a fast approaching snake like the bad-ass Brownie everytime
I gracefully and respectfully take my hat off to you sir!...

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
I had a discussion with the PH's over cocktails about what they thought about hunting DG with a bow. Definite consensus was a stunt. Being backed up by a rifle kinda indicates an "issue" if something goes wrong.

And when you go to Africa and hunt with a rifle -- irrespective of caliber -- you will also be backed by a rifle by your PH.

I've been hunting elk all week with friends, and my sons.

We have killed two elk in the past 3 days.

R.280 with nosler partitions (my 16 year)
300 win mag (my friend)

Both dropped after a few yard. My sons actually died quicker; 2 steps!

I guess that'll open another can of worms

for me, the only real issue with hunting DG with a box VS a rifle, is that there is no way to stop a charge with a bow.

The rifleman has a good chance, unless he is hunting with Mark Sullivan. Then his only chance at the killing shot is to have an automatic weapon and keep shooting.

If you shoot DG with a bow, you know coming in that most of the time your PH is going to kill it for you. Now, if the PH is armed with a bow, that makes it much more sporting...

Rich

That's why if you hunt with a bow, you put the odds in your favor. Get close, remain hidden, down-wind etc. I don't bowhunt, but it's not hard to figure out only certain shots will be available if you choose to use a bow.
Just a different mind set to your own brand of hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
for me, the only real issue with hunting DG with a box VS a rifle, is that there is no way to stop a charge with a bow.

The rifleman has a good chance, unless he is hunting with Mark Sullivan....

The likelyhood of a charge aint nowhere near as high as the hype suggests....lest of course you happen to be hunting with MS.

Q./ Why do some people purposely seek the potential risk & danger of DG hunting, then purposefully choose a more powerful larger bore
that they claim is more effective in dealing with the threat-thus making DG hunting more safe?......seems rather contradictory.

Rifle hunters use more powerful rifles to help cover their ass, and in the bow hunters case , he has someone with a more powerful weapon backing-up.

Seems they are both playing it safe....course if you are not conducting the DG pursuit in so manner, you are then accused of 'foolish stunt shooting'....

Bell wrote that white hunters trumped-up their achievements on DG with the modern centrefire in Africa,
after an occasion where he went after buff with some tribesman..........
Bell fired his rifle into a rather sizeable group of buff and they panicked and ran/stampeded his way,
As Bell retreated some, the natives actually ran into the buff with spears & shields slaughtering them, and also pursued the other escaping buff.
Bell realised chest pumping white hunters were nowhere near as brave as they liked to think of themselves... He was humbled & sobered by the experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
for me, the only real issue with hunting DG with a box VS a rifle, is that there is no way to stop a charge with a bow.

The rifleman has a good chance, unless he is hunting with Mark Sullivan....

The likelyhood of a charge aint nowhere near as high as the hype suggests....lest of course you happen to be hunting with MS.

Q./ Why do some people purposely seek the potential risk & danger of DG hunting, then purposefully choose a more powerful larger bore
that they claim is more effective in dealing with the threat-thus making DG hunting more safe?......seems rather contradictory.

Rifle hunters use more powerful rifles to help cover their ass, and in the bow hunters case , he has someone with a more powerful weapon backing-up.

Seems they are both playing it safe....course if you are not conducting the DG pursuit in so manner, you are then accused of 'foolish stunt shooting'....

Bell wrote that white hunters trumped-up their achievements on DG with the modern centrefire in Africa,
after an occasion where he went after buff with some tribesman..........
Bell fired his rifle into a rather sizeable group of buff and they panicked and ran/stampeded his way,
As Bell retreated some, the natives actually ran into the buff with spears & shields slaughtering them, and also pursued the other escaping buff.
Bell realised chest pumping white hunters were nowhere near as brave as they liked to think of themselves... He was humbled & sobered by the experience.

Some people like the taste of buffalo meat and a bigger calibre allows a wider opportunity of ethical shots.

there is a difference between poaching/money hunting about 330 days a year where he did not mention how many were wounded for each animal harvested.

A prime example was the organized wounding competition Roosevelt carried on with his son in Africa over a century ago.

I stand by the notion that a true bowhunter would not allow the guide/PH to carry a rifle, or, if so, only allow him to fire after the animal has had a chance to return serve on the bowhunter.

The efficient business-like marksmanship of Bell (vs) hopeless shooting record of Roosevelt Snr.

Funny that the guy with the bigbore was the atrocious hunter.

quote:

]Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
a true bowhunter would not allow the guide/PH to carry a rifle, or, if so,
only allow him to fire after the animal has had a chance to return serve on the bowhunter.

Watch Saeeds video on his elephant, his PH fires almost immediately after Saeed.
The beast got NO chance at all to begin a charge,- they played it safe,
........yet you think it should be different for a bow hunting client.

Q./ Why are you into the concept of allowing rather than preventing charges?- [sounds like you have 'MS alpha-male syndrome' .. ]

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
The efficient business-like marksmanship of Bell (vs) hopeless shooting record of Roosevelt Snr.

Funny that the guy with the bigbore was the atrocious hunter.

The point, of course, is what calibre will any of us choose for our hunting--taking into consideration Elmer's advice, and implicitly knowing about Jack's advice?


I've shot alot of medium game with a 270 and equally with a 338. My son, too. We both know that the 270 works, and works well. for Jack. But the 338 works even better. for Elmer. On the whole, the animals go down faster and show more hurt. Neither of us can shoot a 270 any better than a 338. (We've used lots of other calibres, too, [222/223, 7mm, 30-06, 300Win, 300Weath, 8mmx57, 375, 416, and been around even more], but none as widely as the two commonly attributed to Jack [270] and Elmer [338].)

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Some people like the taste of buffalo meat and a bigger calibre allows a wider opportunity of ethical shots.

Some sure do like Buff meat!,.. since on the long course of his ivory safaris, Bell often fed all his accompanying 150 native african helpers with buff meat
taken with his .256 bore or .275 bore....among also a whole variety of plains game for camp meat....and from what I read, they all came back more plump and healthy.
Native chiefs would ask Bell to take the villagers as his helpers, because they were all so well feed-provided for, by Bell.

Now, there was no special magic in Bell, or his trusty .275 bore, or the pedestrian speed-vanilla 175gn solid, since numerous others[including two teenage kids]
that also used that same rifle & bullet combo in later years, killed a wide variety African game just as effectively as he did.