Anybody read this book and wants to share something?

One thing I disliked about KA's stories is the shooting part.No where does he mention the type of bullets he uses or the rifle's sights,bullet trajectories...Most of his kills if not all happen in the dark with the use of his torch or flashlight.The light goes on and the big cat takes the bullet between the eyes and it's all over.It makes me wonder why this is so and if he is not hiding something.

Geez shootaway why read his books.
You are the type I'd hate to sit next to in a movie theater, I'm sure you would give a running commentary on all the continuity flaws you could see and then write the producers to complain that John Wayne didn't say what ammo he was using in his Colt 45.

The Model 95 lever action Winchester in 405Win Kenneth Anderson used was pretty limited in bullet weight and style and his rifle is pictured in some of his photos in his books. He wrote to tell of his adventures with man-eaters in India before many of us were born not to provide the internet forum hunter with a reloading manual.

Yeah Eagle,I was the guy in the next seat you are talking about. I say was because several years ago I figured out that no body cared that that piece had'nt been invented yet. Hooray for Hollywood.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
Yeah Eagle,I was the guy in the next seat you are talking about. I say was because several years ago I figured out that no body cared that that piece had'nt been invented yet. Hooray for Hollywood.

I had to smile reading your post, don't get me wrong I'm also infuriated with some of the stuff you see in the movies but I keep it to myself until I'm out and then if it is a series or something wouldn't bother going to see another.

Most famous Hollywood liberty would have to be "Sergent York", the good old American war hero movie but they had York famously shooting up all the Germans with a Luger because you cannot get a Colt 1911 to fire blanks (he used a 1911 in the actual firefight). Most often the movie gurus use a Colt lookalike in 9mm but a Luger really!!!!!!

I finished reading the first and second chapters.I enjoyed reading the second chapter-"The Lame Horror Of Peddacheruvu".Anderson finally shoots the tiger.He does not say where he shot it or the condition the tiger is in.I find that the story comes across as a little questionable.It is still fun reading however fake, exaggerated or not.

shootaway, try and get hold of a copy of Andersons book "The Black Panther of Sivanpalli" sometime. I think you will enjoy this story of his long quest to get this animal.

Thanks eagle27,I think I will do that.Why is the leopard black?

It is a similar condition that causes fallow deer to also throw to black in colour too, a condition called Melanism. The black panther or leopard (same animal) still has the same markings as a normal leopard but the black colouring to the fur makes the markings less visible.
You just have to get up close and personal to see them, preferably when the panther is dead.

Anderson's book is not just about the black panther but has other chapters on man-eating tigers and snakes and other animals too.

Probably my favourite book of the ones I have read of Anderson's.

I was finishing another chapter of his yesterday-the one about the the tiger that was injured by his friend then turned man-eater.Anderson killed this tiger after it charged.It was not the first time he killed a charging tiger,sometimes in the dark.Seeing some hunting videos of charging lions where a few shooters took part in the follow up shows how difficult the task is.There is no mention in his books of any practice he does with a rifle.Again I wonder if all this is true.

Black panther of Sivanipalli is good one too
I look at it this way
Good books, I believe it unless someone comes with iron proof " it ain't so"
Otherwise, what's the point reading it if in doubts
It takes all the fun and suspense out of it
At least for me

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Black panther of Sivanipalli is good one too
I look at it this way
Good books, I believe it unless someone comes with iron proof " it ain't so"
Otherwise, what's the point reading it if in doubts
It takes all the fun and suspense out of it
At least for me

I find that such stories are more exciting to read when there is no room for doubt.It is still an exciting read and it could all be true.

I am now reading the chapter on the "man hating leopard of T..." This is a story about a female leopard who has all her cubs killed by by some axe bearing wood cutters in her presence and seeks revenge.

I believe they are true stories, maybe enhanced as most stories might be
The pics are awesome and that tells me, Ken was a hunter
Enjoy it George
On the other hand, I had few instances when hunting in the past, that if I put it down writing, I'd be probably called on that as bullshit most likely
So I do believe many " Hard to believe stories "

Quoted from Wikipedia;

"He is officially recorded as having shot 8-man-eating leopards (7 males and 1 female) and 7 tigers (5 males and 2 females) on the Government records from 1939 to 1966 though he is rumored to have unofficially shot over 18 man eating panthers and over 15–20-man eating tigers. He also shot a few rogue elephants."

If the above is true then Anderson certainly has as much right as that other famous maneating leopard and tiger hunter Jim Corbett, to write about his adventures.

Nobody queries whether Jim's stories were all true and correct without embellishment and without any information to the contrary that can be properly substantiated, I don't see why Anderson's writings are called into question.

The photos are there for all to see and there must have been stories behind these photos. In an earlier discussion I posted a link to a video made at the time of his son Donald's death and there is nothing in that video that would dispel Anderson's hunting credentials.

I really enjoy his books no matter what.

If someone tells you a story about what he did and he tells you every detail about it and he is not lying,the story seems true.If another tells you a story but with things left out it will be more difficult to believe.It could be that Corbett was lying but there is nothing he writes that makes me think so.I cannot say that about Anderson.

It's called writing style and not everyone is detail oriented
Common man, Corbet was absolutely natural in his writings, he would have been great novel writer as well
Anderson was not as good of a writer and his style is different
It still happened