I killed a buffalo at 110 yards with my .450 Rigby on my second African trip. Not ideal, but after 6 hours of tracking/waiting that was the best shot offered to me so I took it. One of the nice things about a .450 Rigby is its ability reach out a little further on Dangerous game.
After taking my buffalo with the 450 Rimless on our last trip I then hunted Sable and took my bull at well over 100m. The 450 Rigby Rimless shoots flat enough to take game at medium range if you wish to do so.
OK I don't have the 450 Rigby but a 416 Rigby. Older eyes can use help, especially in fading light, so a red dot or similar is helpful. As Others have said the 450 Rigby can be used on plains game out to at least 200mts so why limit yourself. If your eyes are good then the open sights for DG and the scope for plains game.
Of course you can use anything on anything. I’m a firm believer that in hunting one size does not fit all. If you are using a 450 Rigby to shoot PG over 100 m by all means do it. but the rifle is not meant for that purpose is what I mean
True. However some will travel with one rifle and have it do all. The 450 Rigby is one 458 Cal that can do that if needed. This is where I am coming from.
I won’t debate this, Again all I’m trying to say is a 450 Rigby is for the heavy stuff at close quarter hunting, a RMR, Red dot is fine too for those that may not have perfect vision. However putting on a scope on a DG hunting rifle just doesn’t cut it for me.
I understand what you are saying, and said this. I was just pointing out the other outlook others may have. I am getting the feeling from your last post you are not understanding what I am saying. Yes, you don't have to agree with it and I see you don't. That's fine.
What is worth, I am completely in your camp. I have several rifles .416+ and with very few exceptions, have a scope on all of them. All with QR bases. The analysis would likely be different for a PH, but as a client, I really do prefer a scope. Even at extremely close range I love the true 1x (cc) illuminated scopes.
I do understand what you’re saying — in fact, that’s pretty much what I said myself. I was merely pointing out the other outlook some folks might have.
From your last post, though, I get the feeling my point may have slipped past like a buffalo in the long grass.
No harm done — you don’t have to agree (and clearly don’t), which is perfectly fine. Would be a boring forum if we all nodded in unison, wouldn’t it?
I do understand what you’re saying — in fact, that’s pretty much what I told myself. I was merely pointing out the other outlook some folks might have.
Not at all. I see we both had the same perception on each others posts. Just the way we are.I do understand what you’re saying — in fact, that’s pretty much what I told myself. I was merely pointing out the other outlook some folks might have.
From your last post, though, I get the feeling my point may have slipped past like a buffalo in the long grass.
No harm done — you don’t have to agree (and clearly don’t), which is perfectly fine. It would be a boring forum if we all nodded in unison, wouldn’t it?
