Just an interesting observation I made a couple of days ago. I watched the final shooting portion of a "Stopping Rifle" course being taught at the Flying "B" Ranch in Idaho last Sunday. Did some video of a few of the clients.

This portion of the course took the clients on a Dangerous Game "Hunt" through a course where various animals popped out, the "PH" would set up sticks, and the shooter was required to fire at least 2 shots at each target. The event is timed with the score being a 5 for a kill shot, 0 for a non kill shot, all points being divided by time. There are a total of 7 targets including a simulated Buffalo Charge that is very challenging.

Here's the point. Of all the bolt users, every one experienced some sort of issue with the rifle. One Remington M-700 375RUM user had the weapon spit 2 rounds on the ground while working the bolt quickly. A Steyer user jammed the rifle so badly we had to stop the time, get out a leatherman, and unjam the action.

When you add in the necessity to perform a moving reload, there was NO COMPARISON between the bolt guns and doubles. The doubles did not experience a single hiccup. They were also significantly faster through the course. I've heard the stories about running and reloading a bolt gun and how you can't do that with a double. Well, I just watched the opposite!

For me, watching this evolve was a real eye opener. It's a small sample for sure. I also don't know the experience backgrounds of the participants, which could play a significant role in the outcome. But purely from an observer's standpoint, it really made an impression.

This has been my experience as well on shoots of this type. The Pro hunter's qualifications in Zim found the same outcome!

However your comment about not knowing the background of the participants certainly could have been a real factor in the outcome of this shoot.

We at DRSS need to set up a two part shoot! One for the course you just described, and the other for long range shooting with double rifles. I think a lot of folks would be quite enlightened by the outcome!
...........................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I also don't know the experience backgrounds of the participants, which could play a significant role in the outcome.

Obviously none of the bolt shooters were from AR. Reading the posts on AR it is clear that bolt rifle shooters are at least twice as fast as double rifle shooters on the second shot. Or so I have read.

exexpt in reality...No bolt gun oe semi auto can equal a double for two quick shots...and consideringa a lion can magage 50mph and an elephant over 30......

Age old discussion...
Two shots? Obviously a double.
Three? Bolt gun.
Four? About dead even.

Anybody there using a good old Mauser '98?
And what is the deal with everybody shooting off sticks in a sport shooting event? IMO, shooting fast and accurately offhand would make the event much more interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I also don't know the experience backgrounds of the participants, which could play a significant role in the outcome.

Obviously none of the bolt shooters were from AR. Reading the posts on AR it is clear that bolt rifle shooters are at least twice as fast as double rifle shooters on the second shot. Or so I have read.

Mike, you just needed the little: emoticon on that post.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Age old discussion...
Two shots? Obviously a double.
Three? Bolt gun.
Four? About dead even.

Anybody there using a good old Mauser '98?
And what is the deal with everybody shooting off sticks in a sport shooting event? IMO, shooting fast and accurately offhand would make the event much more interesting.

That is an old discussion and I would agree with your post. However, what I observed is more along the lines of what really tends to happen on a Dangerous Game hunt if the first shot or two doesn't anchor the animal.

The animal runs off after the first or second shot, you move toward the animal and put additional shells into the weapon. This is where I observed problems with the bolt guns. They either spit shells back out on the ground, got jammed in the magazine, or just took excessive time to accomplish. It was less of a demo of how fast one can deliver multiple shots downrange while standing in one place.

Again, I'm sure more experienced riflemen could close the gap but what struck me was the simplicity of the doubles compared to the bolts.

Also, about the sticks, the "PH" set them up each time except for the Buffalo Charge, but the client was not required to use them. They tried to make it realistic to what one would expect to encounter on a hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Just an interesting observation I made a couple of days ago. I watched the final shooting portion of a "Stopping Rifle" course being taught at the Flying "B" Ranch in Idaho last Sunday. Did some video of a few of the clients.

This portion of the course took the clients on a Dangerous Game "Hunt" through a course where various animals popped out, the "PH" would set up sticks, and the shooter was required to fire at least 2 shots at each target. The event is timed with the score being a 5 for a kill shot, 0 for a non kill shot, all points being divided by time. There are a total of 7 targets including a simulated Buffalo Charge that is very challenging.

Here's the point. Of all the bolt users, every one experienced some sort of issue with the rifle. One Remington M-700 375RUM user had the weapon spit 2 rounds on the ground while working the bolt quickly. A Steyer user jammed the rifle so badly we had to stop the time, get out a leatherman, and unjam the action.

When you add in the necessity to perform a moving reload, there was NO COMPARISON between the bolt guns and doubles. The doubles did not experience a single hiccup. They were also significantly faster through the course. I've heard the stories about running and reloading a bolt gun and how you can't do that with a double. Well, I just watched the opposite!

For me, watching this evolve was a real eye opener. It's a small sample for sure. I also don't know the experience backgrounds of the participants, which could play a significant role in the outcome. But purely from an observer's standpoint, it really made an impression.

I have not seen the video you are speaking of, so my comments are qualified.

The comparison may be a bit off when you consider a factory Remingtion or Steyer (not sure if gunsmith modified?) to a hand made Double Rifle. Possibly a comparison to a tuned/custom Wiebe, Echols, Martini, (fairly sure these would perform a bit better than factory rifles, feed, function, etc) may be a more relevant comparison? Certainly, the cost would be more comparable

quote:

I've heard the stories about running and reloading a bolt gun and how you can't do that with a double. Well, I just watched the opposite!

News to me.

It is easier to reload standing still but if the animal is pissing off PDQ and I need to follow, it can and does get the rounds dropped in "on the run", especially if it is only a single round.

quote:

Originally posted by jjs:

The comparison may be a bit off when you consider a factory Remingtion or Steyer (not sure if gunsmith modified?) to a hand made Double Rifle. Possibly a comparison to a tuned/custom Wiebe, Echols, Martini, (fairly sure these would perform a bit better than factory rifles, feed, function, etc) may be a more relevant comparison? Certainly, the cost would be more comparable

Quite possible. However, one of the bolt guns was a Dakota in 416 and another was a Weatherby 416 from the custom shop if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, all of these guys taking the course are heading to Africa on DG hunts within the next 6 months and these are the rifles they intend to hunt with.

More than anything else, watching this was a bit of insight into what their PH's will observe once they arrive in camp and take to the field. You're obviously getting my opinion on it at this point, but when I watched it, it was absent of opinion. Just the actual guys heading to Africa with the actual guns they plan to use. And there was a huge difference with how the bolt guns performed compared to the doubles.

I can shoot both fast but I love my doubles and feel I can shoot them much faster than a bolt gun. Its a double for me until I can't see and then I just get closer. That's the fun part.

On a tit for tat discussion like this one, one nneds to stop and think about something. It is the opinion that the guy on the other side of the debate simply has no real experience with your type of rifle, so is looking through a foggy glass on the subject.

The fact is, the guys who use bolt rifles, as a rule, have never used a double rifle more than an occasional fireing someone else's double at a range, while almost every double rifle hunter has spent most of their life shooting a bolt gun before even buying a double rifle. So the guy who is proficient with a double is likely just as proficient with a bolt gun as well, and is still faster with the double rifle for AIMED shots. After all it matters not if you are fast if you aren't hitting your target as well.

This is why we need a formal properly times and ruled shoot off for record. Nothing solves a dispute like a face off competition! In this case as close to hunting conditions as is posible, or nothing usable will be solved.

.................................................................................................................. ........................

I believe that Cal Papas on another thread stated the obvious. . .

quote:

Actually I'm taking a double .600 from 1914. HOWEVER I did purchase another .600--a single shot Jeffery from 1916. While it is accurate, I strongly feel this single barrel thing is a fad that will soon pass and be forgotten--just like disco.
Cheers,
Cal

Mac, I have to call BS on your long distance DR shooting. I can't see that far anymore so I'm stuck. Maybe throw in a little jog from target to next target. Nevermind, I'm out there too. It's a good thing I like sneaking in close.

Todd - good to see you at the Flying B, and I hope you get that second bear.

Maybe we have beat this thing to death with rifles... doulbe vs. bolt.



How about comparing shotguns?

Double (Side by Side or O/U) vs. bolt action...

Well, I saw the word "Remington" and right away knew it wouldn't end well. Why people continue to buy that brand for anything besides shooting gophers and paper targets, defies logic.

We all know that bolt action sporting rifles were invented so peasants would have something to hunt with; We all are aware of their shortcomings, when compared to a double rifle. It is all so obvious, and has been for the past 150 years; it really does not warrant discussion. I understand that some people are forced to drive mass produced automobiles and wear off the rack suits as well; (I do not actually know anyone that unfortunate, however). Chalk it all up to; that is just the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
while almost every double rifle hunter has spent most of their life shooting a bolt gun before even buying a double rifle. So the guy who is proficient with a double is likely just as proficient with a bolt gun as well,

The end of the movie "Quigley Downunder" comes to mind.....

"I said I had no use for one not that I didn't know how to use one".

quote:

We all know that bolt action sporting rifles were invented so peasants would have something to hunt with

Now we're over the edge! Please! The real reason that the early African hunters used double rifles is because the British couldn't engineer a repeating rifle. Their concept of a multi-shot rifle was welding (soldering) 2 barrels together on a frame. When the Germans created the Steyr and Mauser actions, the British houses bought those actions from Germany to create true modern repeaters.

I love double rifles...for what they are intended for; hunting large dangerous game at close range, offering 2 shots with ultimate reliability. For that purpose, they should be of a large caliber, handle instinctively, have open sights so as not to hinder the shooter's view, and have 2 separate triggers to support the reliability.

But when we start to stretch that use, with longer ranges and non-dangerous game, to insist that a DR is still the best weapon is absurd. For most of us, the use of a scope for precise shot placement is a necessity. Whether a function of design or due to the limitations of open sights on doubles, most shooters can produce better groups at 200 yards with a bolt rifle than at 50 with a DR. Yes, I know...everyone has a story about shooting a Wildebeast or such at 250 yards with an open-sighted DR. Yes, it is possible, if irresponsible, to make such a shot, but does that imply that the DR is the best choice for such a shot? To me, it's more of an example of a Hail Mary shot in a situation where for a bolt rifle it would be close to a gimme.

I love doubles, but let's not get carried away with what their purpose, and limitations, really are.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
while almost every double rifle hunter has spent most of their life shooting a bolt gun before even buying a double rifle. So the guy who is proficient with a double is likely just as proficient with a bolt gun as well,

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

The end of the movie "Quigley Downunder" comes to mind.....

"I said I had no use for one not that I didn't know how to use one".

The post from me above should have read after the last word: “but the reverse is not usually the case!”

Brain1, and Biebs, you misunderstand the part about long range with a double rifle! What I mean by this is, that the double rifle is capable of far longer range than most give it credit for. Certainly I wouldn’t shoot at an UN-WOUNDED animal at extreme long range, nor should anyone else. Most assume that a double rifle is only useful at 100 yds or less, and to most a lot less. That is simply not the case.

When you wound an animal with a double rifle and he runs for cover, a responsible hunter will still be shooting at him till he is down or out of sight. Nobody with a lick of sense would just stand and watch a buffalo or elephant continue to run without throwing bullets at him.

We’re not talking about shooting 3 inch groups in this case but what we are talking about is punching holes in him as many times as we can before he is in the next concession, or park where we can’t follow. Thus reducing the danger of loss of a very expensive trophy, or causing a very dangerous follow-up.

If you can hit a 30 inch gong consistently at 150 or 200 yds with your big bore double off hand then you need to be punching holes in the butt of that buffalo at 150 or 200 yds. If you miss all that is lost is a bullet. You conect it may save the day, If you know your rifle it is not that hard to do!

Certainly it would be easier with a scoped bolt rifle, but that is no excuse for a double rifle shooter to just stand there like a stump and watch him escape!

New Guy is right this will never be settled because it is no use talking the other side of a debate to people who’s minds are already made up. In that case there is no debate, only argument that solves nothing.

......................................................................................................................

Chris,

I enjoyed hanging out with you as well. Enjoyed watching the end of the stopping rifle course also. Haven't gotten the second bear yet but have one more day.

Hopefully, we can get together and do some shooting back in DFW soon!

Cheers

Random thoughts, baised on my experience shooting my own rifles, in the field hunting.

I can shoot my iron sighted 450 No2 as good as I can shoot an iron sighted 458 Win Mag.

I can shoot any of my iron sighted doubles as good as iron sighted bolt rifles in similar calibres.

I can shoot my scoped 450/400 as good as I can shoot a scoped 416.

I can shoot my scoped 9,3x74R as good as I can shoot a scoped 375 H&H.

I have killed a coyote at 287 yards, shooting kneeling with my 9,3x74R double rifle, and I killed a kudu at a little over 300 yards in Zim wiuth the same rifle.
Both shots were in front of whitnesses and both were videoed.

I can shoot better groups on paper with a scoped bole rifle off a bench that I usually can with a double.

But in the field off hand, off of sticks and kneeling I do not see any difference in practical accuracy.

I have discovered that haveing the 2 immediate shots avialable in a double rifle, when hunting, whether it is a 30/30 on deer/pigs, or a 450 No2 on elephant and cape buff, has been much more of a benefit to me, than having a bolt with its larger magazine capacity.

It is just not proper or fair to compare an iron sighted rifle against a scoped rifle.

Also if you want a really reliable 375 H&H or up DG bolt rifle, you will have to spend a bit more than you do for your average deer rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:
Maybe we have beat this thing to death with rifles... doulbe vs. bolt.

How about comparing shotguns?

Double (Side by Side or O/U) vs. bolt action...

..........................
It is ironic that you should mention the last line in your post!

The same people who totally discount the iron sighted double rifle in favor of an iron sighted bolt action will flip-flop on the shotguns!

Nobody in their right mind would choose a bolt actioned shotgun, if either the O/U or S/S shotgun was available all with the same sighting equiptment.

...............................................................................

Todd:

I do not doubt your observations in the least. However, I have to wonder if it would have been so bad if:

1- The shooter had cycled every round before he started shooting to make sure they didn't jam and/or

2- The gun had been properly cleaned.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Todd:

I do not doubt your observations in the least. However, I have to wonder if it would have been so bad if:

1- The shooter had cycled every round before he started shooting to make sure they didn't jam and/or

2- The gun had been properly cleaned.

Larry the same could be asked of the double rifle shooters! Was it properly cleaned, and did every round just drop into the chambers?

The simple fact is, a bolt action is more susceptible to jamming or miss feeding, because the action has to be worked every time an empty is ejected and a new round is chambered drasticlly increasing the chance of something going wrong.

Of course you are right in stating the fact that no matter what type rifle you use to take on dangerous game, everything should be tested before the plane leaves the home airport!

........................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Todd:

I do not doubt your observations in the least. However, I have to wonder if it would have been so bad if:

1- The shooter had cycled every round before he started shooting to make sure they didn't jam and/or

2- The gun had been properly cleaned.

Larry,

Your suggestions are certainly valid. I think cycling every round is important, prior to the hunt. But I think this was more about the efficiency of the movements necessary to reload the two rifle types, especially when walking on uneven ground. In other words, the shooter was not solely concentrating on just loading the gun. A bit of walking and chewing gum at the same time if you will.

Trying to break it down a bit, when loading two rounds into the bolt gun, the one round is palmed and the other held in the fingers. The finger held round drops into the raceway, then the thumb positions it, pushes it down and all the way back so as to ensure proper feed. Then the palm held round is maneuvered to the finger tips, and the process is repeated. In almost every case, the shooter stopped walking at this point in order to perform this task. Often, the second round was dropped while moving it to the fingers. When the shooter didn't slow down to perform this task, the rifle tended to jamb or spit out cartridges.

With the double shooters, the two rounds are held together, dropped into the chambers together, and the action is closed. It's just a less complicated process when looked at on a micro scale. I didn't observe the double shooters needing to stop walking to perform this task and I didn't observe rifle malfunctions as a result.

Watching this, it didn't strike me right off what was happening. I just noticed a stark contrast in the speed and ease of progressing through the course with the double shooters vs the bolt shooters. When reviewing the video, it struck me how often the bolt shooters stopped walking, placed the butt of the gun on the right thigh, rifle 45 degrees upward, shooters head bent over and looking into the action while fumbling with cartridges and getting them into the proper postion. Then, frequently, the rifle would jamb anyway.

In speaking with a few of the participants, they all expressed surprise in how a little stress (in this case time and walking) complicated the task of reloading properly. All of the guys I spoke with also recognized the simplicity of the double guns.

quote:

Now we're over the edge! Please! The real reason that the early African hunters used double rifles is because the British couldn't engineer a repeating rifle. Their concept of a multi-shot rifle was welding (soldering) 2 barrels together on a frame. When the Germans created the Steyr and Mauser actions, the British houses bought those actions from Germany to create true modern repeaters.

I love double rifles...for what they are intended for; hunting large dangerous game at close range, offering 2 shots with ultimate reliability. For that purpose, they should be of a large caliber, handle instinctively, have open sights so as not to hinder the shooter's view, and have 2 separate triggers to support the reliability.

But when we start to stretch that use, with longer ranges and non-dangerous game, to insist that a DR is still the best weapon is absurd. For most of us, the use of a scope for precise shot placement is a necessity. Whether a function of design or due to the limitations of open sights on doubles, most shooters can produce better groups at 200 yards with a bolt rifle than at 50 with a DR. Yes, I know...everyone has a story about shooting a Wildebeast or such at 250 yards with an open-sighted DR. Yes, it is possible, if irresponsible, to make such a shot, but does that imply that the DR is the best choice for such a shot? To me, it's more of an example of a Hail Mary shot in a situation where for a bolt rifle it would be close to a gimme.

I love doubles, but let's not get carried away with what their purpose, and limitations, really are.

Wisest post on the thread...

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Just an interesting observation I made a couple of days ago. I watched the final shooting portion of a "Stopping Rifle" course being taught at the Flying "B" Ranch in Idaho last Sunday. Did some video of a few of the clients.

This portion of the course took the clients on a Dangerous Game "Hunt" through a course where various animals popped out, the "PH" would set up sticks, and the shooter was required to fire at least 2 shots at each target. The event is timed with the score being a 5 for a kill shot, 0 for a non kill shot, all points being divided by time. There are a total of 7 targets including a simulated Buffalo Charge that is very challenging.

Here's the point. Of all the bolt users, every one experienced some sort of issue with the rifle. One Remington M-700 375RUM user had the weapon spit 2 rounds on the ground while working the bolt quickly. A Steyer user jammed the rifle so badly we had to stop the time, get out a leatherman, and unjam the action.

When you add in the necessity to perform a moving reload, there was NO COMPARISON between the bolt guns and doubles. The doubles did not experience a single hiccup. They were also significantly faster through the course. I've heard the stories about running and reloading a bolt gun and how you can't do that with a double. Well, I just watched the opposite!

For me, watching this evolve was a real eye opener. It's a small sample for sure. I also don't know the experience backgrounds of the participants, which could play a significant role in the outcome. But purely from an observer's standpoint, it really made an impression.

Todd - recall what we used to say about scenarios like this while we were on active duty - "No new lessons were learned"
Mangwana

I don't understand any of this.

Faster reloads? Do the double rifle shooters go around with two rounds held between the fingers of the left (non-shooting) hand? Good way to drop 'em. My Model 70s hold at least four rounds each. Chambering the 3rd and 4th is far easier than any double.

I have NEVER had a round fail to feed, whether CRF or push feed, with any bolt rifle. I have NEVER had a jam while trying to load the magazine, including three occasions when a dangerous and wounded animal was only a short distance away.

I can fire the second shot just about as fast with a bolt rifle as with a double. The trick is to leave the rifle on your shoulder and work the bolt while the rifle is recovering from muzzle rise. And practice this.

I consider a scope as necessary for most dangerous game hunting. This includes buffalo, where you have to find a path through heavy brush and lion, where low light level is a problem. With elephant, the scope just lets you place shots better. If you put a scope on a double which has been regulated without one, you're likely to mess up your regulation. You may end up with a zero for one barrel only.

In Africa you don't know what you might encounter. I've encountered (and killed) a zebra while tracking buffalo (didn't disturb the buff) and once accidentally came across a large elephant track while hunting smaller stuff. The trouble with big doubles suitable for DG is that they aren't much good for anything else, anecdotal claims of long distance shots notwithstanding. Maybe you can hit an impala at 150 yards with a big iron-sighted double but don't count on it.

All in all, I suspect the bolt rifle shooters in this competition were basically novices, the type who buys their first heavy caliber rifle in anticipation of their first safari and never bothers to shoot it offhand rapid fire before landing in Africa.

I would like to sum it up this way. Yes a double is faster with the first two. if you watch many bolt shooters they pick there head off the rifle for rapid bolt work.
But there are the wannabees who think they can shoot and when pressure is put on them thumbs take over and you see the results.
If one practices and shoots his double often or bolt gun, smoothness in operation and shooting will go hand in hand.

Mike

For the type of competition that is described here the US Rifle Cal. 30 M1 would be hard to beat.

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:

Faster reloads? Do the double rifle shooters go around with two rounds held between the fingers of the left (non-shooting) hand? Good way to drop 'em. My Model 70s hold at least four rounds each. Chambering the 3rd and 4th is far easier than any double.


All in all, I suspect the bolt rifle shooters in this competition were basically novices, the type who buys their first heavy caliber rifle in anticipation of their first safari and never bothers to shoot it offhand rapid fire before landing in Africa.

Indy,

I think you missed part of the equation here. This exercise was not about how fast the shooters could put 3 or 4 rounds down range by cycling the 3rd or 4th round from the magazine. It was designed to put some pressure on them and FORCE A RELOAD UNDER PRESSURE, not to force them to chamber round # 3 and 4. They were instructed to shoot as many rounds at each target as they wanted, realizing that all shots scored would be divided by their time to fire. But, each target required at least 2 shots. As a result, what every one of the shooters I watched did was to shoot twice (bolt or double) then proceed to the next target while topping off. The double shooters did not do anything special like holding 2 rounds in the fingers. They pulled 2 rounds from the belt the exact same way the bolt shooters did. But when the bolt shooters topped off, they had to place each round into the mag individually while the double shooters just dropped both rounds in together. The bolt shooters dropped a round or two on the ground while trying to load the mag with the fingers and hold the other round in the palm of the hand. Not all dropped rounds, but several did. Not all of them jammed the rifle either, but all had something that tended to slow them down at least once while proceeding through the course. At least the several I watched did.

I also don't think it would be legitimate to assume that all the bolt shooters were novices while all the double shooters were experts. I think they were all novices to some extent, otherwise they wouldn't be taking a dangerous game "stopping rifle" clinic.

Also, I didn't see anything that would indicate one weapon type to be unsatisfactory compared to the other with the exception of the shooter who jammed the Steyer. I'm sorry but I don't know much about that make and model of rifle but it had a detachable clip. The way it jammed, we couldn't even get the clip out of it without prying it with the leatherman. I would say that of all the rifles I saw on the range that day, only the Steyer would be dangerous to use on DG.

That said, purely from a standpoint of shooting 2, then topping off with 2 new rounds while walking or jogging forward toward the next target, the simplicity of operating the doubles was noticeable. Very similar to the way a shotgun and semi-auto pistol are both satisfactory as home defense weapons. I'm not too into the "Tacti-cool" shooting sports, but I understand that while a shotgun is easier to be effective with under stress, keeping it running with fresh ammo in an extended fight is harder to do than simply putting a new, fully loaded mag into the pistol, whereby you can continue firing. That is until you run out of loaded pistol magazines, then loading the shotgun probably becomes faster and easier to stay in the fight with.

There really is no disputing the fact that if you shoot 2, load 2, shoot 2, load 2, and repeat this sequence 7 to 10 times, the loading sequence that contains fewer and simpler movements of the hands and mechanical manipulations, will be faster and result in fewer errors. That statement certainly doesn't disqualify bolt guns as being perfectly suitable for DG. But when comparing the two action types, we tend to think of how fast one type is for 2 shots, 3 shots, or 4 shots. I had not really thought much about shooting a few rounds and topping off while advancing toward your target. Watching this class perform just exposed a new wrinkle in the old argument.

I would have to admit as a new double user, my ability with the double for 2 quick shots is better than with my bolt guns at "charge distance" even now. However, I don't think that the double is the be all of DG shooting. I think I am a lot more "technically proficient" with the bolt rifles.

But, this test would have issue for me if there is an issue about ammo on the ground. I have managed to get myself to the point where I pretty much automatically cycle the bolt completely when hunting DG. I have a couple times now dumped 4 rounds from a 416 rigby into a buffalo in reasonably thick cover. The one time it was videotaped by the PH and by the frame counter it took me a little over 3 seconds from first shot to last. All 4 shots were fatal hits.

If I have to put more ammo in the gun, the one round up the pipe will either go one the ground as I jack the bolt hard and load more ammo, or I am going to be futzing around for 5-6 seconds gently extracting it, putting it back in the magazine, and then getting more ammo in the gun. The rifles are CRF, so just pushing something somewhere is not going to work well.

IN other words, this test is biased towards a double, as the speed reload is something a double does well.

If you get the odd (I suspect impossible) circumstance that the second shot "convinces" the animal to come at you, or if a second animal comes out of the bush at the second shot (in other words, you are not running after the animal to follow up and giving you time to reload) and you were not with other guys with rifles, where would you be at that point with the double? My point is, this is all artificial argument to justify whatever gun you think is "best" not give a real absolute answer (its a trick question- the answer is whatever gun you have in hand when SHTF...)

Would the double do a lot better than most think at 100 yards plus? Probably. I have surprised myself with how close I come with express sights at a 200 yard gong- BUT I realize its 50/50 that I will hit a 12" gong at 200 yards. If I do this with my scoped bolt guns with similar set up its nearly 100%. Doesn't mean if I futz my first shot with the double and I have a running away elephant that I am not going to take the shot- of course I will... But it does mean that if I see a 50" buffalo and I can't get closer, I will not be shooting if all I have is the double. With the Rigby, well, I will shoot at it with that one, even if it makes me an evil trophy hog.

Seems to me the real question is: Can you reload your bolt rifle "on the run"? Can you reload your double "on the run"? I admit that I would have more trouble reloading my bolt rifle on the run than my double. Why? More to do! Probably could be overcome with practice, but still, I suspect, more difficult.
Peter.

I knew it was just a poor sample group. Several posts on this thread prove the point that had the AR bolt action shooters been there the result would have been far different.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I have a couple times now dumped 4 rounds from a 416 rigby into a buffalo in reasonably thick cover. The one time it was videotaped by the PH and by the frame counter it took me a little over 3 seconds from first shot to last. All 4 shots were fatal hits.

Kudos. That would be interesting footage to see for sure. Please post.

quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:

quote:

Now we're over the edge! Please! The real reason that the early African hunters used double rifles is because the British couldn't engineer a repeating rifle. Their concept of a multi-shot rifle was welding (soldering) 2 barrels together on a frame. When the Germans created the STEYR and Mauser actions, the British houses bought those actions from Germany to create true modern repeaters.

Wisest post on the thread...

Yeh right! the STEYR created by the GERMANS???????????????????????

None of that has anything to do with the superiorty, or lack there of, of the double rifle for it's intended purpose!

A couple of points, you are more likely to have to reload on the move with a double than bolt rifle. Notice, I said "have to" not want to. Saying that, I wouldn't hesitate to use either when after buff or elephants. In fact I have and had no qualms when carrying either. You just need to know their week points and try to stay out of situations where that weekness could be a problem.

465H&H

Mike, I will have to see if I can get a copy of it.

Brian's tracker took the video, and I don't have a copy of it.

In any case, I am not saying that the outcome of the test would be any different for me with a bolt gun, far from it- I just think stating shoot 2, load 2 more rounds in the rifle and shoot 2 more is a test that the double will win.

How about shoot 3 from a spot, then on the run load the rifle, and at a second spot shoot 3. If the gun doesn't hold 3, you will do a standing reload at that point. 2 extra reloads will eat you up.

I can wager that most of us would have a better time score with a bolt gun than a double doing that "test" drill...

Don't get me wrong, I am taking a double back to Tanzania this year and hope to shoot some buff and an elephant with it. I think the double certainly is a more elegant weapon, and has a lot of nostalgia behind it. I think that if you are capable with it, it is every bit as useful a hunting arm as anything. I just don't think a double is the only way to hunt DG- or that only DR shooters are really good at shooting.

So I guess I am a heretic.