This post is in responce to another string on the 7x57 Mauser! (Granddad's cartridge, and rifle) The 7x57 Mauser is a fine cartridge, it has been used for many things that it was designed very well to do! Haveing said that, let me say it has been used for many things it was not designed to do, and contrary to endorsements for this cartridge, some of the things it was used for were not as successful as the user would have folks believe! Case in point is W.D.M. KARAMOJO Bell's use of this round for elephant! Many today take the fact that Bell killed a lot of elephant with this cartridge, to mean this somehow makes small cartridges as adequate for dangerous game! Nothing could be further from the truth! Those who lean toward this type of thinking, are simply fooling themselves, or believe the hooey that is toughted by those takeing Bells own writeings out of context! These people seem to, either, not know, or choose to ignore the fact that bell lost many wounded elephant to the little 7x57, at a rate of as many as three out of five shot!

QUOTE: " It seems Bell's memory was a bit hazy when he wrote his books in later life! There are several apperant discrepamsies, and it is difficult to determine just when he begain useing the Rigby .275 (7x57 MM) for which he became famous!" EQ: from pg.69, RIFLES FOR AFRICA.

The fact is he used the 303 Britt far more sucessfully, than the 275 Rigby.

Quote: " With Bell's skilled hunting tactics, and careful shooting, the 7x57 proved successful, and he wrote he killed over eight hundred bull elephant with it. His name, subsequently, became synonymous with this caliber, and, in many people's minds, the 7x57 came to possess almost magical powers. This is not only grossly misleading;it is also dangerous.

The truth is that Bell's fondness for his .275 had more to do with the light weight, and superb balance of the little Rigby-Mauser, thanwith the effectiveness of the cartridge. Bell made it clear he certainly did not consider the 7x57MM an ideal elephant cartridge."

Bell hunted elephant who fed in the open, and had not yet learned to fear humans. These ele did not run when approched by a man on foot. They tollerated people much in the same way they did the Impala that grazed under foot! This fact made it easy to get the proper angle to hit the heart, which is 18' in diameter, or the brain from the side. Bell said himself, that the .275 often failed if any angle other than a side shot to the brain was attempted! To top this off many bones, meat,and ivory laid un-claimed on the plains after being lost to the little .275 Rigby. That was no problem for Bell, he simply shot another one if one got away wounded! That wouldn't be tollerated today, even if one could get unlimited permits, while Bell needed no permit at all! Today one has to go into the thick to shoot elephant, because they have learned they can't trust man! For this kind of ele hunting one must get very close, and use bad angels to get a bullet through a hole in the bush. This multi angel shooting requires a REAL rifle to get to the vitals! If the ele is wounded, you musr track him till he is sorted out, at the tune of $2000 perday, or pay the trophy fee if he is lost anyway!

Quote; " Present-day hunters who use Bell's success to support arguments in favour of useing very light calibers on dangerous game, merely show their ignorance of modern hunting conditions!" pg. 68 Rifles For Africa!

This should get the juices flowing, and My vote is for the 7x57 for up to Elk/moose with proper bullets, in the USA, or Wildebeest in Africa. The rules for hunting dangerous game in Africa, are in place for a reason, with the absolute bottom being 9.3x62, or in many places, the 375 H&H, for any dangerous game bigger than Leopard, about 120 lbs.

This , in no way, says the 7x57 isn't a very nice, well balanced cartridge, but, that it is not the magic wond that may think it is!

What I would like to see is, a nice, sane, discussion on the use of small chamberings, for large animals, without the name calling. The purpose of this string is not to down anyone, but to dispell the myth that has been fouisted by those who quote the use of 7x57 by Bell to justify their use of too small rifles for everything walking! OR to see how many buy into the myth!

[ 09-29-2003, 23:03: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

I don't think very many people would actually take the 7x57 out the gun safe when it comes time to noodle mbogo et al., even if they legally could.

The WDM Bell rhetoric about the 7x57 is used to underscore its usefulness on lesser game; i.e. if it can be used on elephant with *good* success, then surely it can handle up to moose/elk at sensible ranges.

Bell used the 7x57 when elephants lived in the open and were unafraid of man, just like American hunters used to kill elk and sheep with 30-30's. When elephants were pushed into the forest, most people stopped using small bores on them, just like most American hunters think the 30-30 is too light for elk and sheep. Can the 7x57 kill elephants? Under ideal conditions. Is it a good idea? Not any more. What's it good for? Thin-skinned non-dangerous game under about 500 lbs. and inside about 250 yards.

Flame suit on, Okie John.

I thought Bell prefered the 7x57 because the (german quality) ammo was reliable! It doesn't mather if the cases are headstamped .416Rigby or whatever if you only hear a CLICK when you pull the trigger.

If the ammo in .318 Whestley Richards had been reliable I think he would have prefered it over the 7x57.

The quotes you gave were not from Bell were they? I think those quotes were from people who despise the ideal that he was so successful with the little seven. Bell is not here to defend his exploits but we all know he did it. I'm not sure I would want to trust the people who made those quotes as they surely have an ax to grind. Is a mere .303 any better than a 7x57, not in my book. If he wrote that the vast majority of elephant he shot was with the mauser than so be it. As for wounded and lost elephants with the 7x57......just how many elepants were lost and wounded with appropriate big bores......a bunch!!! No caliber can have a perfect record of no lost game as hunters and bullets don't always do their part. A 7mm bullet in the brain or through the heart will kill most cleanly except in freak circumstances, some humans survive such wounds. What I don't understand was his apparent insistance of using solids on everything including cats and antelope. He must have been great at spine and head shooting that group. But as we know, the old farmer/rancher/settler types used alot of small bores on big tough stuff as that is what they had just as the 30-30 had to be called upon by the same type people in the U.S.

As to Bell using solids...could be a number of reasons

1. It is not a good idea to carry softs in a small calibre arm in the bush where dangerous game may be about...particularly thick skinned dangerous game. Most of the time you can likely change from softs to solids, but not always. And always is what counts.

2. RN solids usually penetrate better than softs(though not always), and adequate penetration is essential when using the little rounds...to get to where you want the bullet to go, from all angles.

3. It often is advisable to try to hit the ball of the shoulder(s) rather than poke the round through the heart of the animal. Rapid immobilization can be pretty important when on foot in the bush. Particularly in thick, nasty, thorny bush. Solids often have a much better chance of breaking the shoulder ball than softs.

4. Makes purchasing ammo in the correct amounts much less planning dependant. When Bell did much of his hunting rapid transport was a dream in most of the world. (May still be if you're waiting for a brown truck packet <g> Was much easier to have just one kind of round in your pockets and in camp.

Though Bell used the 7x57 a lot, it seems likely that was more a matter of convenience than anything else. Remember, he had gunbearers with back up rifles a lot of the time. He also used the 6.5 Mannlicher and the .303 Brit a bit too, but I don't think he ever thought any of the three to be "better" than a good large bore slug in the right place.

Though his name has become closely associated with the .275, it may be a lot like Jack O'Conner becoming associated with the .270. Jack actually preferred the '06 for animals like bear. Sometimes a man's aura overshadows even him.

All my opinion. Yours, of course may likely vary.

AC

[ 09-30-2003, 04:47: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

Bell hunted at a time, from 1895 to the Start of WW-I when he went off and became an RAF fighter Pilot. Did one more safari after the Great War. By then the price of Ivory dropped and other matterials were around to make Billard Balls. As an Elephant Hunter, he did two things that made others mad. 1. He lived to tell the tail and 2. He ended up wealthy. A lot of people had problems with that. As for his rifles, well the 275 Rigby Mauser that Rigby made, was as refined a rifle as there ever was, and it was light and Bell well he could really shoot. He Knew his game, and he knew when and where to shoot. He was one of a kind, we know of him because he wrote, there were others at the time, most lived and died as they were. Bell was a very good business man, he end up with something to show for it, while others didn't.

[ 09-30-2003, 08:20: Message edited by: George Semel ]

First this discussion was not for whether the 7x57 is suitable for Elephant, or not! We all know that it isn't! The issue is, does the fact that Bell used it on elephant place any validity to the arguement for useing calibers that are considered too small for the game you intend hunting, regardless what it is!

Something to add for this discussion! This is a quote from Rifles for Africa , by Gregor Woods pg 70: " Interestingly, the records show that Bell's first two .275 Rigby rifles, of which he took delivery in 1910, were sighted for HIGH VELOCITY cartridge. Yet Bell claimed to have used only DWM 170-grain full-metal-jacket 7x57mm amunition on elephant (he was very criticle of British-made amunition)"

This reveals two things, one, he didn't get his first .275 Rigby rifle till 1910. Before that he used the 303 for elephant, from 1895 till 1910! It also indicates he modified the Rigby rifles, himself, as he stated in his, Posthumously published, book Bell of Africa Bell wrote that the moment he "got to African bush" he would set up a target, and, useing gunmakers files,would file away at the sights untill he got the group landing where he wanted them. This would indicate he had to file the sights so the DWM 170s would shoot to the sights from the Rigby HV rifles!

According to Rigby records, his next three .275 Rigby-Mauser rifles were ordered in 1911, 1912, and 1922! All were sighted for high vel ammo but were all fitted with an extra rear sight for ordenary ammo. Bell's last elephant hunt was around 1920, so the last rifle was most likely used in Scottland where he retired at that time!

Your opinions??????

Anyone know the whereabout of Bell's Rigbys?
I saw his Mannlicher many years ago on display at a gun show and I think Thad Scott has one of his small bores for sale.

It's been awhile since I read his books, but seems like I recall he used the 318 on elephant more than anything else. Also the 6.5 Mannlicher. He also used a 416 but only mentions it once and definitely preferred the small-medium bores. Bell was quite an adventurer. Even spent time in the Klondike gold fields procuring elk with a Colt SAA 45 only to have his "partner" run off with their monetary proceeds. I think he went on to the Boer War from there. Correct me if I'm wrong, saying this stuff from memory, books are at home and I'm at work now.

So what you're saying is, there's no way Bell could have gotten ahold of a 7x57 in Africa before 1910 because someone's supposed records say so. Again, does someone way in the past have an ax to grind?

Beg to disagree on the gunbearer bit. He did not call them gunbearers, true. He called them companions, or "boy"s, but they were often, as I understand it, armed.

Surely they did not tote his rifle along for him when he was hunting with the small bores, but they were there with "back-up" fairly often.

So, call it whatever one wants.

There were licenses, limits, etc., in those days, too. But a fair number of roving Brits and others chose to ignore them, as they probably rightly viewed them as more revenue schemes than conservation plans. That, of course, used to cause some friction when hunting in Portuguese, Belgian, and other nations' claimed territories or colonies where such limits and license fees were in place.

I would also point out that from the distance of today's views, the Rigby's have a reputation as very fine rifles. In actual fact, I have owned a fair number of them, mainly in 7x57 and .303, on Mauser actions. Although they were generally fully O.K., they were no better than the German "commercial" models A, B, etc. that I have also owned, in my opinion.

I had one .303 Rigby Mauser which was very nicely put up in an oak & leather case, with buffalo-horn handled nickel-plated cleaning rod, two buffalo horn handled turnscrews, a small bottle with threaded cap made from Elephant ivory containing a spare foresight, and a Zeiss scope (re-labeled Rigby) in its own leather carrying case inside the larger case. Rear sight was a multi-leaved express sight. Case had some Blighty Colonel's name embossed on the outside. It was very nicely done-up, and in the 1970's still shot spot-on at 100 yards with 150 gr. Dominion ammo. But, it was not really any better rifle than several commercial Mauser 7x57 rifles in my collection of those days. Presentation was great, but workings were pretty much the same.

If you really want to cry, I bought the whole assembly in England in 1970 for less than $200 Canadian, and sold it to a fellow in Kamloops, B.C. for less than $400 Can. When last I saw it, someone had broken the leather handle off the oak & leather case, but Griffin & Howe in New Jersey still wanted $4,650 U.S. for it...and that was in 1991.

I have also owned several Rigby 7x57s which were poorly enough done that I sold them soon after acquisition. One in particular had an original stock with considerable cast-off which was resultingly rather too thin at the wrist and was wretched to handle. It was NOT a cross-over stock, but had apparently been made for someone with immense jowels. Got rid of that rifle for $175 Canadian in 1973 at the Edmonton gun show and was very glad to see it gone.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I agree with RR. "Use enough gun". Just because someone undoubtedly has killed grizz with a .22 Hornet doesn't make it kosher, or sporting. Animals do feel pain, and deserve better if they are going to be treated as living targets for either "good" or "bad" reasons.

For a good number of years, the Canadian government supplied Inuit with .22 Hornets & ammo, then apparently .222s and later yet, .223s. Yes, they killed everything with them. Does that make them walrus, polar bear, beluga whale, musk ox, and caribou rifles? Well, maybe, but there are a lot more sporting rifles available to most of us.

My opinion, anyway.

AC

[ 10-02-2003, 06:22: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

I just took a quick look at Chapter XV in Wanderings Of An Elephant Hunter and here's some interesting quotes:

"Speaking personally, my greatest successes have been obtained with the 7mm Rigby Mauser or .276, with the old round nosed solid, weighing, I believe, 200 grains. It seemed to show a remarkable aptitude for finding the brain of an elephant."

"I have never been able to appreciate "shock" as applied to killing big game. It seems to me that you cannot hope to kill an elephant weighing 6 tons by "shock" unless you hit him with a field gun."

"If I belonged to this school I would have had built a much more powerful weapon than the 600 bores."

"The thing that did most for my rifle shooting was, I believe, the fact that I always carried my own rifle. It weighed about 7lb. and I constantly aligned it at anything and everything. I was always playing with it. Constant handling, constant aiming, constant Swedish drill with it, and then when it was required there it was ready and pointing true."

While Bell's views on large versus small bores are debatable, I think the last observation is good advice.

[ 10-02-2003, 17:26: Message edited by: fla3006 ]

I think the Inuits probably rely heavily on head and neck shots as they would be practical people looking for the weakest spot and knowing fully of the limitations of those little cartridges. Just like all the ole farmers who would shoot a deer for the pot and using only a .22lr. They all knew the head shot was the only reasonable target. Know, I agree that there are appropriate calibers for the intended game. But to me a good .338 or .35 caliber should be legal for cape buffalo.

Hey Guys,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, Bell used the 7mm cartridge because he was sensitive to recoil. He was slight of stature. At least that's what I've read and it was suppose to have been a direct quote form Bell. He may have liked the 275 cartridge and it's performance but I believe he appreciated the lack of recoil more.

The 1890's was a time when we were going from black powder to smokeless powder. There were many British rifles available that were more acceptable for use on dangerous game using both black powder and smokeless.

I've never hunted any African game. However, I am a fairly good shot. But think it is totally irresponsible to hunt dangerous game with equipment that is inadequate, whether you can put your bullet where you want it or not. I believe this because if you are not very, very lucky you could get your guide or "gun bearer" killed.

On the other hand, if you want to hunt dangerous game while undergunned and are completely alone - that's your business. If you have others around you, I believe you have a responsibility to them to be properly prepared.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Good Shooting,

Smoker*

I have the same problem with touting the 7x57 as an elephant gun as those who tout the .22 hornet and .223 as polar bear guns, due to the exploits of the Inuit and Inupiat.

Most hunters, and especially those touting too little gun have no concept of how Bell, the Inuit and Inupiat hunt.

Another twist will be that an Aliut friend from Kodiak said that they carried 458 win mags and 10 ga shotguns for bear protection. Again, this is a totally different situation then the Inuits and Inupiat. Dense jungle foliation on an island vs barren tundra and ice packs.

What this really spells out is the difference between wanting the animal to drop at the shot, vs producing a terminal wound that will eventually kill the animal.

Mac -

I think you mean YOUR definition of a gun-bearer is one who carries a gun until bwana may want to use it.

Mine is "a person who bears a gun", either for his own use as a back-up, or for the "boss" should the latter so choose.

Is irrelevant to the topic anyway, so am sorry I brought it up.
--------
It may also be worth noting that relying totally on the writings of a man who is scribbling about himself restricts one to a very narrow and not necessarily totally objective view. Much like learning about Al Gore by believing at face value everything in the writings of Al Gore.
--------
Historically, the Inuit have not been particularly great shots, though I am certain that individuals have been very good shots indeed. We have no way of knowing how many animals they have wounded which escaped to die in agony. Nor do we actually have a real good count on how many Inuit have been killed as a result of wounding large animals with inadequate cartridges. It is always a mystery when an Inuit hunter totally disappears as to whether they were killed by cold, an animal, accident, starvation, or something else...

Inuit rifles have not always been kept in very good condition either, so their rifles' accuracy is an open question as well.

At any rate, I assume you are not suggesting that small bores of the hi-power .22 class are good all-around polar bear, walrus, etc. rifles?
-------
I personally continue to believe we are obliged as "sportsmen" to use cartridges which will not only kill reliably, but which will kill quickly and mercifully, if we choose to kill at all. To me that usually means the largest cartridge which we can handly truly well.

Best wishes

AC

[ 10-02-2003, 22:43: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

Talking about native hunters with guns, I saw something interesting on a Nat. Georaphics program. Some pygmies were hunting forest buffalo and they had just the one gun and believe it or not, just one cartridge as ammo was hard to come by. It was probably an old military rifle of some sort. Only one of the pygmies was a fair shot so he was given the honnors as they had just the one cartridge. They did come upon a mature bull forest buffalo all by itself and at the shot the buff went right down but was still alive. It couldn't get up so was probably a spine shot. The pygmies had too much fear of the buff to aproach it so they just waited for it to die and it took awhile. I think the little forest buff was supposed to have weighed about 700 lbs and it was a great treasure for them in the amount of meat they could get from it.

Alberta Canuck, whith all respect, for anyone who hunts African Safaris, the name "GUN BEARER" is a person who carries the heavy rifles used by the hunter,so that when he gets to the elephant, he is not so worn out he can't shoot properly! In most Safaris, and all the ones I've been on, the only people armed in a hunting party, are the PH (profesional Hunter) the game ranger, usually carrying a rifle so rusty it is doubtful it would even fire, and the client hunter. The rest are trackers! Most of the double rifles used for Elephant hunting are 12, to 16 pounds depending on caliber, and carrying that rifle all day in the 120 deg heat following an Elephant track will wear you totally out! The bearer is placed in front of the hunter, with the rifle over his shoulder,holding it by the muzzel, with the butt pointing back at the hunter. This way if the animal is encountered all the hunter, or PH has to do is take the rifle as the bearer fades to the side. This leaves the OH/hunter fresh so he can shoot the rifle that is already pointed in the dirrection of the animal! Hence the definition of "Gun Bearer"! You may attacth any definition, to the name, you please, but in Africa, it is the one just explained to you! It is also the meaning Bell used for the name! I, like Bell, like to carry my own rifle,but I hunt Africa with heavy double rifles, and am not recoil shy at all!

All else you have written in your last post above, exactly makes the the point I've been trying to make with this string. That is, simply because a person uses a minature round for the hunting of any big game, does not necessarily make that round suitable for the hunting of that species. This is why I have a problem with takeing the exploits of BELLs 275 Rigby(7x57 mm), or O'Connor's 270 as an argument in favour of useing small chamberings for such hunting. As you state, and it is my opinion, as well, that one tends to only talk about his successes, and slide over his failiers. I believe this to be the case with BELL. Because he was recoil shy, is his reason for useing small chamberings to hunt Elephant, and it urks me to hear folks say that chambering should be enough for Cape Buffalo simply because Bell killed one out of three elephant he shot with it!

I was a young sprout devouring Outdoor Life in Jack's hay-day and was, in fact, one of those who figured that if The Man could take anything in North America with a .270, so could I. On the other hand, Jack always wrote admiringly of the use Eleanor put to her 7x57 and eventually got one of those instead. I took a fair number of pig with it, and very effective it was but when time came to hunt outside of California, I had a .375 built. I'd grown some and read a lot more authors by then. A couple of Alaskan trips and a pair of safaris have led me to pay a lot less attention to either O'Connor's or Bell's choice and left me with my signature. . .

[ 10-04-2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Oldsarge ]

I wouldnt feel undergunned hunting Mbogo with a 30-06, that is as long as it was of the M-60 variety.

One huge difference in todays hunting world and that of era's past is that today, everyone wants the one shot kill, and in days gone by the follow up shots were often numerous and this practice was quite acceptable then.

In my mind the most revealing facts that can be taken from the exploits of Karamojo taking Ele's with his 7X57 and even O'Connor taking Grizzlys with his 270 are that fact that those light calibers CAN and WILL produce enough penetration to get the job done. Where they lack is in tissue damage (;see energy and bullet expansion).

Gentlemen

Bell didn't have one 7X57, but quite manny Some of his rifles were built by Daniel Fraser in Scottland. Fraser built Bell the 256 Mannlisher rifles and a few single shot rifles in 303.

7X57 would work on Elephant, but it's not Ideal. 700 NE is not either ideal for Elephant if you can't shoot it accurately and place the bullet were it shall be. Bell used 173 Grain DWM FMJ ammo.

I think that 7X57 is a good caliber for most small game, deers, moose, sheeps etc. I got a friend who is nuts about the caliber and has untill today taken Black bear, Billy goat, Maral stag, Fallow deer, Roe deer, Chamois, Ibex, Eland, Kudu, Oryx, Sable, Warthog. The bullets been used has been 140-160 grain's noslers. It will do the job if the shooter can place the bullet correctly.

/ JOHAN

WDM Bell:
"As regards rifles, I will simply state that I have tried the following: 416, 450/400, 360, 350, 318, 275 and 256. At the time I possessed the double 400 I also had a 275. Sometimes I used one and sometimes the other and it began to dawn on me that when an elephant was hit in the right place with the 275 it died just as quickly as when hit with the 400, and vice versa, when the bullet from either rifle was wrongly placed death did not ensue. In purusance of this train of thought I wired both triggers of the double 450/400 together, so that when I pulled the rear one both barrels went off simultaneously. By doing this, I obtained the equivalent 800 grains of lead propelled by 120 grains cordite. The net result was still the same. If wrongly placed, the 800 grains from the 400 had no more effect than the 200 grains from the 275. For years after that I continued to use the 275 and the 256 in all kinds of country and for all kinds of game. Each hunter should use the weapon he has the most confidence in."

[ 10-05-2003, 22:21: Message edited by: fla3006 ]

More of Bell's thoughts on big bores:

"In preparation for this, my first well-organized expedition to Africa, my battery was my first consideration. My war experience had taught me that the British 303 Lee Enfield rifle was a useful weapon, and I thought that, used with the 215 grain solid jacketed bullet, it would serve me well.........So I acquired two sporting models of the 303, each with the ten-shot magazine............It must not be imagined that this decision was lightly come to. I had at that time a great friend, Daniel Fraser, the celebrated gunmaker of Edinburgh. Often he would take me down to his testing range where he would have various rifles, single and double, in the "white". Here I got a good insight into the intricacies of making two parallel barrels shoot together. They never did so, and consequently had to be adjusted so that their lines of fire crossed each other at the correct distance from the muzzle. But it was no joke firing the heavier bores such as 500 or 577 from the gunmaker's rest. The whole punch of the infernal artillery piece expended itself against the leaning body of the firer- all in cold blood, mind you- so that one felt that one's whole skeleton would fall asunder. I took a strong dislike to these mighty pieces, although admiring their craftsmanship."

[ 10-05-2003, 22:22: Message edited by: fla3006 ]

From the mouth of Bell himelf - thanks!! What must it have been like, to have a friend like Daniel Fraser! And to have been able to fire some of his rifles "in the white"!!!

Mac -

I well know the common use of the term "gunbearer".

Let me point out, however, that Bell often was not alone when hunting. His various companions, regardless of colour or social station, were usually armed, and usually with heavier hitting rifles than he. Because most of them were with Bell at Bell's convenience, I doubt that had Bell wished to use their rifles (which he sometimes provided, if my memory serves correctly), he would have not felt free to do so.

Some of them were pretty good hunters themselves, particularly the native hunters, and so their armament served as fairly dependable potential backup in their own hands.

I have always admired Bell, and as a lad wished to be like him, so don't mistake anything I am saying as a "put down" of the man. But, he was just a man. A good man, but human none-the-less.

Naturally, much of his books serve the functions of not only describing his choices and adventures, but of justifying them as well. To those ends, one reads mostly of his successes, and little of his failures in his books. As a writer, he also well knew the niche his cartridge choices placed him in, and also knew how to play to that audience. (Just as did Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith, who began writing professionally not too many years after Bell...)

I still feel that a man accompanied by persons from whom he might choose to obtain a heavier weapon when he wished, and who might well serve as backup in emergencies, had an advantage which played a large part in making it possible for him to consistently use a snall bore.

That is true even if he NEVER ever used one of those rifles or never had to have a fellow hunter save him. In hunting, as in most shooting games, a psychological sense of security can greatly improve personal performance.

Comparing Bell's companions with the persons present on modern safaris can be a bit misleading. In the early days of African hunting, native companions often served as translators, teachers of how to survive in the bush, camp organizers and full-fledged hunting companions, as well as scouts. These days, of course, those roles are split between the Professional Hunter, the gunbearer, and the scout(s).

Though most Brit writers of books about their hunting feats gave short shrift to the accomplishments of their companions in their books, in many ways they respected their companions more than hunters of the late 20th sometimes did. (Do?)

I suggest that had Bell been hunting alone, with unarmed, incapable camp assistants, he would likely have used heavier rifles a great deal more than he did..or given up hunting altogether due to his aversion to recoil.

But then, we will never know, will we? Tough to turn back the hands of time and replay any life under different circumstances...

Best wishes,

AC

[ 10-07-2003, 05:11: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

Since we don't have too many elephants roaming Oregon, who really cares if a 7 x 57 will take an elephant or not.

However, it will definitely take any deer anywhere or any Elk, or Moose. Especially with 160 and 175 grain bullets.

In all of Bell's exploits and debating of it on here, it should also be pointed out he also knew Elephant anatomy real well. Therefore relying on that, and BULLET PLACEMENT, sure it would work over and over.

On the flip side, a 458 Winchester or a 460 Weatherby, without proper shot placement will also not guarantee a kill on a 75 pound blacktail deer.

Shot placement on the right spot is still a lot more effective than a much bigger caliber and bullet in the wrong spot, no matter how close it is to the RIGHT SPOT.

Beyond that, it is all academic and theoretical isn't it???

It is true that 7x57 chambered rifles will work well on moose, provided the hunter is self-disciplined enough to take the good shots and really, truly, pass on the poor ones.

Matter of fact, I killed my own first moose up near the banks of the Athabasca River, NW of Ft. Assiniboine, Alberta, with a 7x57 Brno ZKK rifle. What's more, the bullet was an ordinary 139 gr. Hornady spire point. Shot him twice, once from one side, once from the other. Both shots passed completely through the ribcage & lungs about an inch apart and continued on out the other side. He never moved over 6 feet.

Actually, though, on large game such as elephant, particularly if trying brain shots,
a near miss with a large bore is likely to be much more effective than a near miss with a 7x57. The large bore has a good chance of knocking the elephant out cold or stunning him for sufficient time to deliver a second shot. The chances of that happening with the small bore are not as good.

As in many things, a balance is likely the best way to go, in IMHO. Use as big a cartridge as one can shoot well that will kill mercifully. If one can't stand the recoil of a cartridge which will kill mercifully, perhaps he ought take up golf instead.

Note, there is a difference between "kill reliably" and "kill mercifully". Several local teenagers were arrested here a couple of years ago for killing over a hundred columbian whitetail deer at night, out of season, shooting from a vehicle, by lung &/or gut shooting them with .22 rimfires, just for the "fun" of watching them suffer & die. The .22 LR was a reliable killer, but it sure as Hell wasn't merciful.

(Incidentally, over 50 of these deer were killed while the teens were out on bail awaiting trial for killing the first 50 or so. So what was their sentence? A $200 fine and 2 years probation. That's justice?)

AC

[ 10-07-2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

Contrary to some posts here, Bell shot many elephants in the high grass and in the thick forest and had many a close call...

I have seen one elephant killed with a 175 gr. 7x57 solid with a heart shot and the elephant went 100 yards or so and died and I have never seen so much blood on the ground. About what one would expect from a 458 Lott...I understand one elephant says nothing, just passing that on, but I will add it makes little difference if a brain shot is made with a 600 or a 284, the result is the same. the 7x57 has enough penitration to do that...More elephants are culled with .308 than any other caliber....

I don't recommend the 7x57 for elephants and will probably never use one for such, but I put more trust in a man who has shoot over a 1000 elephants than anyone on this internet board including myself...He has all of beat in experience...

Bell was a great hunter and a fine shot and his experience should be a wake up call to all of us that its where you stick them that counts and caliber has little to do with it within reason.....I have come to appreciate that more and more over the years, having seen Buffalo and other DG shot with some lesser rifles...

Were I given the opertunity to shoot a big bull elephant, but only if I use a 7x57, then I would jump on the chance, and carefully place my shot with a proper bullet and hope for the best...I would bet $10,000 I can pull it off as many times as you want to bet me and pay for the elephants...If I lose, go collect from my wife,however that would be more dangerous than me shooting the elephants.

Just a social converstation mind you......

Hey Atkinson,

I doubt that anyone here is trying to put Bell down. On the contray - none of us here are the qualtiy of hunter that Bell was - if for no other reason, because of his experience. The separation of time puts us in awe of his firearms accomplishments. We simply can not experience 1900 Africa.

Lacking that experience, why would anyone risk the lives of those around him because he/she does not want to pass up such an oportunity.

I've hunted for about 40 years and have passed up many shots for many reasons. None of those reasons are as good as taking the responsibility to assure the safety of my fellows.

Just my opinion,

Smoker*

Smoker,
Like I said, just a social conversation, and I took a different approach to Bell than some did here for that reason... I don't consider putting a 175 gr. solid in an elephants head or heart putting someone life on the line anymore so that just hunting elephants, which is a dangerous pasttime any way you look at it. I have also seen an elephant shot with a 7x57 in the heart and he went 100 yards and ran out of blood, about what one would suspect with a 500 N.E. More elephant are shot with a 308 (culling) than any other caliber and one allways has a PH to back him up on elephant hunts, and usually a couple of other fellows..

Its ones choice and it happens all the time...no one is forced to go on such a hunt unless they are willing...A good shot with a 7x57 is more to my liking than some of the poor shots I have accompanied on dangerous game hunts with such calibers as 460 Wbys comes to mind in one instance...

If I felt like you did, I would give up hunting dangerous game entirely, hunting Buff in the high grass with a 500 N. E. is more dangerous than hunting elephant with a 7x57 IMO....

So, as you can see, we see things in a different light, and I too have hunted many years..

Hey Atkinson,

Apparently, I have stated my opinions incorrectly. I apologize if I sounded like I was preaching or offended you in any way. That was not my intent - my intent was only to express my opinion about a difficult subject.

Difficult because the subject can conjure up memories of various similar situations which are usually interpreted differently by each person experiencing the situation.

Again, I apologize if I have offended you,

Smoker*

I think this has become a most interesting thread, and we are fortunate to have Atkinson joining in, as I suspect he has more experience in such matters than most of the rest of us, even if it is not exactly like having Bell himself participating!

I find the use of .308's for culling to be interesting! In one of his last articles that appeared in the American Rifleman back around 1954, Bell stated that despite his admiration for the 175-grain load in the 7X57, he opined that the .308 Win., with a 220-grain solid at about 2250 to 2300 FPS would be about the "ideal" elephant round for the kind of shootin he used to do. It had acceptable recoil, MV was in the right range for deep penetration, the 220 was a 4-diameter bullet which could be used in a short action, making cycling of the action faster than longer rounds! He was especially disenchanted with "long" magnum cases, because they took too long to cycle in a bolt-action rifle, and lead to "short-stroking" the bolt under pressure!

Interesting hypothesis about the .308! (What .308 bullet do the cullers use? A long roundnose solid, or military stuff??

[ 10-12-2003, 20:39: Message edited by: eldeguello ]

/

ALF!! Thanks for your comments. Very appropriate, and accurate info.

One must remember that these hardy souls could shoot and Bell himself practiced off hand by shooting flying birds over a river to feed the crocs...He also know the anotomy of an elephant from frequent autopseys....He was capable, simple as that and proved by his dieing of old age.....

The point is a properly constructed small caliber bullet to the brain or even the heart for that matter is quite as effective as one twice its size...At least that is the school I am from, and I don't believe elephant can be knocked out unless the bullet grazes the brain and many an elephant has survived a close brain shot including the first one that was ever shot with the much touted .700 N.E...

But like all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and a good 40 caliber makes since for most folks....and certainly a 500 will work for those that can shoot it, but not always for thoes who profess to be able to shoot it. Those that can are a rare and hardy breed indeed....