quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
It can be done as many here have proven, but are there better calibers for the job(?) YES.

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
It can be done as many here have proven, but are there better calibers for the job(?) YES.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
I am always amazed that folks still think that a larger diameter bullet or more powerful cartridge will make up for a poorly placed shot. It won't.

Also,they seem to overlook the fact that each of us has a limit after which we simply cannot shoot a more powerful cartridge as well or accurately.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

Also,they seem to overlook the fact that each of us has a limit after which we simply cannot shoot a more powerful cartridge as well or accurately. The 9,3x62 is one of those cartridges that while not mild is also not punishing and most people can shoot it well without much effort. The .375 H&H while very similar ballistically, kicks just that much more than many cannot shoot it as well.

quote:

There was a time, 50 lbs ago, when the .30-06 was my upper limit. It was as powerful a cartridge as I could shoot accurately. .

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Bigger is better in unpredictable circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Hunting being hunting is not always done in perfect circumstances, particularly with Buffalo and Elephant where you are often shooting at them through the worst of scrub.
Bigger is better in unpredictable circumstances.

quote:

So will the 338 Win with 300 gr bullets and the old 250 gr solids will exit lengthwise

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
[
How is missing the brain with 570gn solid any better than missing it with say [.338cal]250gn solid,
considering the buff is still coming for you?

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
[
How is missing the brain with 570gn solid any better than missing it with say [.338cal]250gn solid,
considering the buff is still coming for you?

Particularly with Elephant but with Buff as well, it just knocks the s%$t out of them where the smaller round just zips on by. A bit like hitting a peg with a sledge hammer over a nail into a 2"x 4". Often increasing the opportunity to place the next round if required.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
I dont see M. Sullivans first barrel delaying the charge/or 'stunning' this Bull >
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6to3R4BFXeg

In fact, the bull cops the first barrel just as it gets to its feet,
then accelerates from near standstill, like nothing ever happened.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
I dont see M. Sullivans first barrel delaying the charge/or 'stunning' this Bull >
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6to3R4BFXeg

In fact, the bull cops the first barrel just as it gets to its feet,
then accelerates from near standstill, like nothing ever happened.

The exception is not always the rule.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

Back to the calibre question, if a 270 hit the brain with a tough bullet, the buff would have dropped just as dramatically.

However, the closer to the edge of the brain or off of the brain that the bullet hits, the more that a heavy calibre is helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
His formula showed that when comparing .450ne vs .500ne,...the .500 had a whopping 55% [theoretical] advantage.

However,
his actual vast DG hunting experience, made him state that from, .40cal up to the .500cal+ bores,
He noticed no appreciable field performance difference between them!
I other words, one did not temporarily 'stun' elephant any better than the other.

quote:

Ozhunter:
I would say there is a big step up from 416 to 450 on up.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
That is why game departments set up rules like "37 calibre, minimum" or "40 calibre, minimum", and smart hunters don't undermine.

****Those old guys had it right years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
When the made those rules most bullets were junk by modern standards.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

I suspect that the modern loaded 9,3x62 with current high quality Soft and FN pills[like GScustom],
would perform at least on par with the standard of .375 loads that were commonly
available to the unfolding era of modern type Safari clients beginning from around the 1950s.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

I suspect that the modern loaded 9,3x62 with current high quality Soft and FN pills[like GScustom],
would perform at least on par with the standard of .375 loads that were commonly
available to the unfolding era of modern type Safari clients beginning from around the 1950s.

No doubt a 286grn 9.3mm bullet through a buffalo's lungs or hart will be adequate to kill it and that someone that cant shoot a big bore or any round well could very well have problems BUT that does not change the fact that a larger round will kill faster and if "god forbid" you have a defection or fluff the shot you will likely get a better opportunity to "sort it out".
One situation that comes to mind is Stu Taylors accident. He said this would have been quite a problem had he not hit the buffalo with his 458 even though the shot did not hit the brain.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
You may want to fly that flag at half mast.

Studies have been done. I remember reading a piece in the 80's or 90's (by Carmichael or Milek or ?) where an outfitter kept track of the averaged death run by muledeer or elk and the 338 cut down the average running distance of a 30-06 to 2/3. However, any such study is only a statistical anecdote. Scientific statistical reliability > 95% or 99% would be extremely difficult to achieve. So your comment borders on the unprovable.

Nevertheless, generations of hunters have come to a collective common advice and the burden of proof falls on the person who goes against it. In other words, assuming that there is no advantage in killing power or stopping power to the larger more powerful bullet must be called both unproven and rash. I've watched enough animals hit by a 270-3006 versus those hit by a 338-375 to be personally convinced that bigger is better.

Please note--I am not saying that a 9.3, or a 375, or a 338 are not good buffalo killers. They are. But bigger is better so a buffalo hunter would be advised to shoot the legal minimum to where it seems like a 270 or 243 and then to consider something larger and redo the process. Or even faster--do a couple of sessions with something a definite step above whatever the target calibre is and then enjoy the lighter calibre. I'm convinced that the biggest culprits to inaccurately handling a rifle are noise (!) and preconceptions of 'big' or 'too big'. As I told my son-- the 416 only becomes an effective hunting rifle when the shooter treats it like a 270. (hey, I admit to my own preconceptions--I've seen that 577 TRex video. Only one guy rode that wave.)

quote:

Was asking OZ or anyone for actual links to show facts that bigger kills faster. Still waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Was asking OZ or anyone for actual links to show facts that bigger kills faster. Still waiting.

As mentioned, the burden of proof would be on you to show that they don't. So far, 100 years of collective African experience with modern cartridges says they do. All of which means that if you want to use the legal minimum and believe that it is equal to the larger calibres, you are free to do so. Your PH may disagree, but then that's his responsibility, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Oz - "a larger round will kill faster" Any "actual, documented proof that this is the case"? Please let us know where we can find this information. I would really like to read up on this so as to be better informed in the future. Convince me sir by providing the facts please.

Larry Sellers
SCI (International) Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Ametuer/novice DG hunters who wreck their shot and end up in a jam,
are often saved by another more reliably competent person heavily-primarily relying on :
Solids,ShotPlacement and Penetration.

Length & Straightness of wound channel[linear track of projectile]
becomes much more important than Width/dia. of the wound channel.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Ametuer/novice DG hunters who wreck their shot and end up in a jam,
are often saved by another more reliably competent person heavily-primarily relying on :
Solids,ShotPlacement and Penetration.

Length & Straightness of wound channel[linear track of projectile]
becomes much more important than Width/dia. of the wound channel.

One is entitled to his opinion but that sound like theoretical bs.

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Haven't seen too many DG PHs carry 375 or less on BG hunts.. I wonder why???

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Haven't seen too many DG PHs carry 375 or less on BG hunts.. I wonder why???

ozH,
I gather you have made that observation over a good number of yrs,
So,that curiously makes me ask:

- why did you personally use a 9,3x62 on DG,..and not a larger more powerful bore?