Rifle Lessons Learned from the Zimbabwe Professional Hunter Proficiency Exam

[IvW]

I do not think anyone makes a 12 gauge loading appropriate for the task. That doesn’t mean they can’t. Shotgun loadings use really fast powder. That allows a shotgun to use a relatively thin barrel. You put a barrel with more meat forward, you might be able to use a slower powder. You would have to use all brass shells, like some of the first cartridge shotguns. A solid copper or a copper jacketed steel projectile would give you better sectional density than current lead slug designs. Slower powder will also give you a lot more wiggle room on slug design.
Such a design also alleviates another issue the original author brought up, fumbling with reloads trying to single load from the top. A magazine fed weapon could simply allow a mag to be dropped, and a fresh one inserted. Magazine retention should not be an issue. If a clients life is one the line, let it fall to the ground and sacrifice it.

Still confusing!

The only smoothbore I use on DG is either my 9.3x74R/12ga combo or my "poor man's double", which is a sxs, double trigger, sidelock Brno shotgun with barrels cut back to 24 inches, front sight fitted and ghost ring on the back.

The application however is limited to follow up on Leopard and hunting bushpigs in the thick stuff and warthogs for kicks.

Loaded with Brenneke slugs it is perfect for this use, however that is where it ends. Using this on any other member of the DG brigade(except perhaps lioness in a pinch) would be, well, suicidal!

As for DG bolt actions and "drop away" magazines, well, another disaster waiting to happen!

My 375 H&H takes 6 rounds, a 404 Jeff on the same action 5 and my 500 Jeff on the same action 4. Now trust me if you cannot stop what you need to with that amount of firepower, you should probably not be guiding clients hunting DG or on foot safari in a DG area.

If you do need to reload(top up) either after firing the first or second shot or even if you get to the point where the mag is empty, it is much faster to top load another round in a proper DG rifle than to try and dump the magazine and fit another. This topping up can be done while on the move without taking your eyes off of the action so to speak.

The tools of the trade are either a proper double rifle or a proper bolt action DG rifle, my choice has always been the bolt action and the above mentioned doubles for leopard.

 

[ChrisG]

I do not think anyone makes a 12 gauge loading appropriate for the task. That doesn’t mean they can’t. Shotgun loadings use really fast powder. That allows a shotgun to use a relatively thin barrel. You put a barrel with more meat forward, you might be able to use a slower powder. You would have to use all brass shells, like some of the first cartridge shotguns. A solid copper or a copper jacketed steel projectile would give you better sectional density than current lead slug designs. Slower powder will also give you a lot more wiggle room on slug design.
Such a design also alleviates another issue the original author brought up, fumbling with reloads trying to single load from the top. A magazine fed weapon could simply allow a mag to be dropped, and a fresh one inserted. Magazine retention should not be an issue. If a clients life is one the line, let it fall to the ground and sacrifice it.

It has already been tried. The old Black Powder Elephant guns were truly "guns" not rifles. The 6 bore, 4 bore, and exceedingly rare 2 bore were almost universally smooth bore guns firing a hardened lead ball using some 300-600 grains of black powder and their repective bore-appropriate weight ball. They STILL lacked penetration at 1600fps. Recoil, even without rifling was so atrocious that most men couldn't fire them with any precision out past stomping range.

The thin barrel on a shotgun has nothing to do with the speed that the powder burns at, but the ridiculously low pressures at which shotguns operate. even a 3.5" 12 gauge magnum only generates 14,000psi or so. Using slower powder would mean you would need more powder to get the same velocity at a given pressure. THAT is the advantage of slower powder, you can lengthen the pressure curve by using more powder and imparting more overall energy to the projectile without increasing chamber pressure, giving you more speed. This would actually reduce the amount of slug opportunities or payloads because there would be less space in the case.

It would be a complete redesign to produce a gun capable of higher pressure and able to sling a heavy, high SD bullet fast enough to penetrate an elephants head on the longest, bone traversing course. Correct me if I am wrong @IvW , but that is probably the "The elephant is on top of me and I need to put a bullet up its trunk, through most of its face and into the brain" shot. Thats a couple of feet of pretty tough bone. I am fairly certain there isn't a 0.60"+ bore operating at 14,000 psi that could do that. A .600 Nitro might, which is a 20 gauge diameter (0.620") but much heavier bullet at much higher pressure(like 45,000 psi).

Rifles really are the absolute best thing for close in performance on almost any dangerous game. I would dare say they are probably the best for any of the dangerous cats as well, I think the only caveat being that any hit on a leopard or mountain lion is better than a miss with a rifle so a shotgun is preferable due to their speed and difficulty in scoring a hit on an incoming, camoflagued, 175lb cat. Keeping a solid copper slug on course without it being either a sphere or a traditional foster designed slug (weight up front for stability) would be problematic without rifling. Even the brenneke design might have issues with the lower density metal allowing the slug to tumble. Not to mention a copper or steel slug would take up a bunch more space in the shell over a lead core design, reducing powder capacity.

I haven't been hunting in Alaska yet, but a good number of my friends and aquaintances have, and almost to a man, they said their guide carried a .375" or larger rifle. They have better knockdown power, are more accurate, and penetrate and damage heavy bone better than either a shotgun shooting any sort of ammunition or a handgun. Even the mighty .500 S&W is outclassed by fairly sedate rifle rounds. I would say that given Don Heath's experience in dealing with dangerous game, plus centuries of others experiences, or failures (and subsequent death at the hands of various species of DG)... the rifle will always come up trump when it comes to stopping dangerous game.

 

[mark-hunter]

Great overview.

 

[Matt_WY]

OP, I greatly enjoyed your post!!! I have personally seen the same exact things happen in the "tactical world" when students bring their home-build (incompetently) or DPMS/Bushmaster bargain-basement type AR15/M4 to a multi-thousand round 3 day course.

I have seen Eotech's die. I have seen optics shoot loose on the rail and the shooter be unable to hit the targets even at closer range. I have seen muzzle devices fly downrange. I have seen piston guns puke and break non-standard parts. I have seen all manner of things go TU on someone's rifle "that worked fine last weekend at the range when they put 100 rounds in an hour through it."

The #1 issue I see is "shoddiness of assembly". That is to say, someone will not use a torque wrench/screw-driver and stick to recommended and proper torque values. They will not use a thread-locker on screws that should have one applied. Firearms vibrate. Sound is vibration. Stuff literally falls off of these shoddy setups.

All true, but nothing beats seeing the face of a person whose gun just went full-auto because of an aftermarket trigger install. <giggle>

 

[1dirthawker]

the initial article by don heath was very interesting.

i have had a small taste of his commentary of my own. i had a 416 remington model 700 bdl, i got it for a deal. ($850 bucks for the rifle topped with a leupold vx3, and was muzzle broke, with 2 boxes of shells) bought it in 2002.

planned on using it on a brown bear. on its second trip to the range, it failed to eject, multiple times. the problem turned out to be the very small extractor was worn too much and failed. i took it to a gunsmith, and the ejector button spring was replaced and the extractor was also replaced. at that moment, i became a believer that push feed guns should not be used on DG.

the ejector button is a hotspot for corrosion (living in alaska, i get lots of it) and that will keep a rifle from ejecting. unfortunately (??????) in 2003 my rifle was stolen and lost forever. my current rifles used on brown bears are CRF or ...double rifles.

my experience was only one experience, but the article above validates that experience and expounds on it. some individuals on the forum have had different experiences than mine, thats ok. if you want to take a push feed to africa, more power to you. it will probably work fine, but a PH wants something that will guaranteed, no joke, go off EVERY time you pull the trigger and then feed the next round flawlessly to do it again.

i hunted DG one time, a PH will be hunting DG 10-50 (or more) times each season. their rifles just have to work, every time. and therein lies the reason that we, the clients can bring about any rifle we want. we have a PH with a proper rifle ready and ABLE to bail us out if needed.

 

[ZG47]

the initial article by don heath was very interesting.

i have had a small taste of his commentary of my own. i had a 416 remington model 700 bdl, i got it for a deal. ($850 bucks for the rifle topped with a leupold vx3, and was muzzle broke, with 2 boxes of shells) bought it in 2002.

planned on using it on a brown bear. on its second trip to the range, it failed to eject, multiple times. the problem turned out to be the very small extractor was worn too much and failed. i took it to a gunsmith, and the ejector button spring was replaced and the extractor was also replaced. at that moment, i became a believer that push feed guns should not be used on DG.

the ejector button is a hotspot for corrosion (living in alaska, i get lots of it) and that will keep a rifle from ejecting. unfortunately (??????) in 2003 my rifle was stolen and lost forever. my current rifles used on brown bears are CRF or ...double rifles.

i hunted DG one time, a PH will be hunting DG 10-50 (or more) times each season. their rifles just have to work, every time. and therein lies the reason that we, the clients can bring about any rifle we want. we have a PH with a proper rifle ready and ABLE to bail us out if needed.

Exactly, anything that traps water and/or dirt (and fails as a consequence) is a no-go in a mechanism that must work reliably in all weather and terrain. Amateurs can sometimes cut corners without suffering bad consequences. Professionals do not have the luxury of such experimentation.

In my line of work, a Japanese company called Kango created the electric breaker and Hitachi later took the market for themselves. Hilti, a German maker, brought out their own breaker, which was complicated, less powerful; and useless for general site work. Makita have essentially copied the Hitachi recipe but have a long way to go in market share.

 

[bruce moulds]

i have a dakota 76, win m70s and mausers.
the only one of these that has failed is the dakota believe it or not.
the reason was that the ejector got sluggish due to gummy oil (my fault) and camu up too slowly to catch the cartridge case as the bolt was pulled back, thus no ejection.
i put this down not only to my slackness, but to too fine a tolerances in manufacturing the action.
kept clean and freshly oiled it has never failed since.
the old military mausers had looser tolerances deliberately, and this along with design is where reliability of function came from.
to a degree the same with factory m70.
the latest iteration of the 98, also i believe used by rigby, claims far tighter tolerances than the original as a selling point.
is this in fact a valid case?
bruce.

 

[fourfive8]

i have a dakota 76, win m70s and mausers.
the only one of these that has failed is the dakota believe it or not.
the reason was that the ejector got sluggish due to gummy oil (my fault) and camu up too slowly to catch the cartridge case as the bolt was pulled back, thus no ejection.
i put this down not only to my slackness, but to too fine a tolerances in manufacturing the action.
kept clean and freshly oiled it has never failed since.
the old military mausers had looser tolerances deliberately, and this along with design is where reliability of function came from.
to a degree the same with factory m70.
the latest iteration of the 98, also i believe used by rigby, claims far tighter tolerances than the original as a selling point.
is this in fact a valid case?
bruce.

Is this generality about tolerances and reliability under all conditions valid?- Yes, IMO

 

[Hogpatrol]

Late to this party but for a custom, I like the Kelbly Atlas with a mechanical ejector.

 

[BigSteve57]

I have referred to this thread many times. However the OP is dated 2010 so I'd like to ask if there has been a more recent set of evaluations done & published?

 

[IvW]

I have referred to this thread many times. However the OP is dated 2010 so I'd like to ask if there has been a more recent set of evaluations done & published?

Not sure but the facts remain, still same issues with the same rifles as mentioned....

Stick to rifles with proven track records when hunting DG...

 

[ChrisG]

I have referred to this thread many times. However the OP is dated 2010 so I'd like to ask if there has been a more recent set of evaluations done & published?

Not from Don Heath. Sadly he passed away not long ago.

 

[Paparock94]

This whole thread was a great learning experience as I learned some as well as it confirmed some of my own thinking. I remember a few years back (my how the years fly as we get older) I read an article about the Guide Tests and their firearms that was much longer with more of a detailed breakdown of the problems with different firearms. That was on my old computer and I have lost that saved link. Does anyone remember such an article or have a link to a newer version to it? If not thanks anyways for all the great information everyone! I will never live to see Africa other than through others eyes.

 

[crudeoildude]

that was a pretty long chance Jerome why did you wait so long??

 

[steve white]

The US target shooter has undoubtedly raised the world wide standard for accuracy and what makes for it. Accuracy standards for all rifles are thereby raised, and no manufacturer will dare say 3" group is good enough at 100 yds. However this sometimes evolves into popularity of stubby (read efficient) cartridges which are difficult to feed in magazine rifles. Very little DG is hunted so emphasis more on first shot accuracy than on quick follow-ups. But the African hunter can more easily get stomped on if something goes wrong....essential need for smooth feeding follow-ups. We should learn from the strengths of others, and improve with best practices. I WONDER if cost cutting bedevils us sometimes? The difference between a Toyota and a GM product--GM says to subcontractors, "build this part for 6 % less or else" whilst Toyota says "build this part 6% BETTER for the same price." And we wonder why one vehicle is more trouble free than another! Also, is a Remington built to chamber a DG cartridge built to a higher standard than a 243? I doubt it, but the DG rifle will cost more for the same model! That is baloney. The PH trials SHOULD have a salient effect on the manufacture of DG rifles, AS WELL AS A REDEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A DG RIFLE. It is up to us all to inform them of their deficiencies. Lay an ostrich egg in the chicken yard and say to the hens, "look what folks in other places are doing."
BTW, Remington--if all the custom gun builders are putting Sako extractors on your guns--why don't you just improve and do it for us?

 

[Hogpatrol]

The US target shooter has undoubtedly raised the world wide standard for accuracy and what makes for it. Accuracy standards for all rifles are thereby raised, and no manufacturer will dare say 3" group is good enough at 100 yds. The difference between a Toyota and a GM product--GM says to subcontractors, "build this part for 6 % less or else" whilst Toyota says "build this part 6% BETTER for the same price." And we wonder why one vehicle is more trouble free than another! Also, is a Remington built to chamber a DG cartridge built to a higher standard than a 243? I doubt it, but the DG rifle will cost more for the same model! That is baloney. The PH trials SHOULD have a salient effect on the manufacture of DG rifles, AS WELL AS A REDEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A DG RIFLE. It is up to us all to inform them of their deficiencies. Lay an ostrich egg in the chicken yard and say to the hens, "look what folks in other places are doing."
BTW, Remington--if all the custom gun builders are putting Sako extractors on your guns--why don't you just improve and do it for us?

Toyota parts are better? This is a myth. Autos are assembled from parts outsourced and used by ALL auto companies. Remember the Takata air bag fiasco? Every manufacturer used them. Same goes for most other parts, wiring harnesses, facias, carpet, radios, ad nauseum. Except for sheet metal, engine blocks and transmission cases. Wheels, bearings, tires, lights, wiring, brake parts, suspension, motor mounts, etc. are outsourced BY ALL MANUFACTURERS, including BMW, Mercedes and Audi.

Another myth. Why does a Remington DG rifle cost more? Big difference in liability with a deer rifle versus a dangerous game rifle. Jam a deer rifle, you miss. Jam a DG rifle, you may die and your family will sue.

Why no Sako extractor? Because not everyone is hunting dangerous game, or needs a follow up shot and 95% of gun buyers want CHEAP and that's what you get, a stamped sheet metal extractor in a mass produced rifle.

Cross manufacturer outsourcing is why GM was bailed out. They owed so much money to ALL SUPPLIERS that ALL OTHER MANUFACTURERS USED that if they didn't pay, those supplier would have went bust and it would have shut down the ENTIRE U.S. auto industry, including TOYOTA, and the remainder of the foreign transplants.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own "facts".

 

[Paparock94]

Count me among those that believe in paying for quality!

 

[bruce moulds]

sometimes you see a product with a name like "tasty cheese" or "garlic flavoured".
often things named in such a way are anything but.
bruce.

 

[HWL]

A good gunsmith and a Mauser M98 action make a good & affordable DG rifle .

A British premium gunmaker and a lot of money make a perfect & expensiv DG rifle.

Nothing has changed since 120 years....


HWL

 

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

This whole thread was a great learning experience as I learned some as well as it confirmed some of my own thinking. I remember a few years back (my how the years fly as we get older) I read an article about the Guide Tests and their firearms that was much longer with more of a detailed breakdown of the problems with different firearms. That was on my old computer and I have lost that saved link. Does anyone remember such an article or have a link to a newer version to it? If not thanks anyways for all the great information everyone! I will never live to see Africa other than through others eyes.