more is better!!!

I think Ross S. is refering to "too much gun" for the hunter is bad. i.e. do not use a gun that has more recoil than you can handle.
After all a man has got to know his limitations.

Elmer Kieth is referring to "too much gun is better than the alternative" in relation to the game being hunted. i.e. it is better to use a gun more powerful than necessary for the game being hunted, than one that lacks the power to take the game from any angle.

I believe both statements to be true and not in disagrement with each other.

As to which side I stand on....I would rather hunt deer with my 450 No2 than a 243.

[ 02-22-2003, 21:32: Message edited by: N E 450 No2 ]

Yeah!....what NE 450 No2 said!

NE 450 No2, just beat me too it! I too, see no conflict between the statements!

Ross built a 577 Nyati bolt action after a close encounter, hunting bachelor cape buffalo in heavy thorns with a 45 Linebaugh 6 gun.

Perhaps he means that anything over a 577 Nyati, and or a 500 Linebaugh is a bad idea?



GS

Well I followed Seyfrieds instructions pretty much to the letter and both myself and my mate built one of his very own inventions each, looks like he lead us up the garden path

My recollection is that Elmer Keith strongly believed in large bullets for caliber, and large caliber bullets. He'd had some bullet failures. Ross Seyfried, living and shooting in a slightly later period, had had access to and experience with bullets that would not fail.

Elmer Keith probably wanted to avoid losing or only wounding game with bullets that failed even with perfect placement, and he hoped that the larger caliber bullets would prevent that.

Ross Seyfried on the other hand, could count on even small-caliber quality bullets to drop an elk or an African lion with proper bullet placement, if the hunter did his part to put the bullet in the right place, and light-recoiling rifles helped assure that.

So I'm going to do a slimy finesse here and say that they were both right because of the tools they had at the time to do the job. In both cases their concern was that the most fallible participant in the operation perform adequately.

I like Elmer Keith a lot. I have a .44 Magnum revolver, though without the balloon-head cases, there was no need for it with good .45 Colt loads in a strong modern revolver. I have a .338-.378 Weatherby (not a KT. the only reason that Elmer shortened the case in the first place was because they couldn't get powder slower than 4831. I get to use 5010). There's no reason not to grow on top of his work, though, so I also have a fast-twist .22-250 and a .510-.505 Gibbs. If I ever tire of the .22 (haven't got good loads for it yet, so I don't quite know what it will do), I am thinking about a fast-twist 6mm.

My recollection is that Elmer was not a fan of small-caliber bullets that failed, and indeed at one point he was slamming .17 (?) caliber solid copper bullets straight through rabbits at a frantic speed around 4000 fps, just to prove that speed by itself without expanding bullets would not kill. The rabbits generally were undisturbed, and in some cases kept right on eating! Try that today with bullets that expand like they are supposed to, and the rabbits expire promptly.

I think it was Capstick that said "Use ENOUGH gun!" He felt that you should choose a round with sufficient power for the game, then make sure you can handle the recoil well enough to shoot it well. To use a white tail deer analogy, a heart shot with a .30-30 is better than a stomach shot with a .338 mag.

He was an advocate of the .375 HH for all but the most experienced users of big game calibers. He felt that it was the minimum in terms of effectiveness and the maximum in terms of recoil the average hunter could handle. I don't have the hunting experience of most of those contributing to this forum, but I do know the .375 is about the most I can handle effectively.

SDS Everything you posted, above is true for the way you read the two quotes, and I agree with you 100 % if the two men had been talking abou the same thing. They weren't, however, talking about the same thing. These type comparisons between gun writers are what causes the rifts between them, like the one between Kieth, and O'Conner. Many times both were saying the same thing in different ways, or talking about completely different things, as these two were here!

In this case Kieth was speaking about the rifle being enough, or more for the game hunted, and had nothing to do with the shooter at all, and was assumeing good bullets.

Ross Sefried was talking about a rifle that is beyond the capabilities of the shooter being a bad Idea.

I agree with both these statements! A rifle that is too heavy, or has too much recoil, for the shooter, will hinder recovery and the second shot! As Ross said here a smaller arm is called for. Kieth, however says if you can handle it, there are no rifles too big for buffalo!

I think these two men would have agreed on the two seperate subjects!

These two statements are unrelated in intent, but could be considered to be boundary statements. If a 30cal could do the job, and a 35 was a better fit, and *ONE* can't shoot a 458 or larger, then you can use(in INCREASING prefence) a 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40ish, to the 404. That is accepting that you can shoot them all equally well, then by selecting one of these, you are using enough gun..

If you are jeffeosso, and have this choice, and decide to use the 500 jeffe for the job, and CANT shoot the frickin thing, then you have chosen too much....
(btw, this is more or less my arguement against muzzle brakes... )

or, if you are hippo hunting, and you name a Whm. Bell, that 708 is a poor choice as well..

jeffe

Citori3

I think it was Robert Ruark that said "Use Enough Gun".

Guys- You can't kill anything too dead! Maximum energy is the goal at any range! Of course you still have to hit the target! I notice that as horsepower goes up, my max range goes down! Anything over 25 yrds needs a 30-06 is my mantra!-Rob

I was talking with my Brother the other day about large pistol rounds, but I think it applies here. He said "Enough power is to the point of being almost totally uncontrollable". I've been shooting heavy 45colts, 454's and 45-70 in my BFR for a long time. I realized the other day that I hadn't shot my 44Bisley in about 4years. A friend picked up a Puma 44 levergun and we cast up a pile of 250 keiths. The bullets looked absolutely tiny comparitivley. I loaded some and took my 44bisley to the range with him. I was surprized with the light recoil. I remember when a 44mag used to seem huge.
More Powder, Bigger Bullets.
lar.

Too much gun = too much for the shooter to handle accurately.

There is no such thing as too much gun for the game.

If you build something for fun, go bigger, If you build something for hunting go safe!

>There is no such thing as too much gun for the game.<

How about a grouse and a 300 Weatherby?

As long as you take a head shot you'll still have dinner.
lar.

The answer lies in where you put a properly constructed bullet, then either one will work...

I agree the statments do not contridict each other....

I knew Elmer and read all his stuff...He sure wounded a hell of a lot of game, even with his big bores...By his own admission and always blamed bullet construction or small calibers like the 375 and under

I knew O'conner and read all his stuff and he never wounded much, even with his small bores or didn't tell about it.

I can't improve on what N E 450 No 2 said. However, I don't have a big double yet so I'll have to hunt deer with a 416.

Buliwyf

Rob said,
"Anything over 25 yrds needs a 30-06 is my mantra!-Rob"

I've got a 30-06 that will hit a button at 100 yards.

I LIKE that saying. However, I think a properly loaded 375 H&H is the real 30-06;-)



Gs