Inconsistency and Hypocrisy in What Is Enough Gun for Large Animals

BruceS said:

Im probably in the minority, but I think 1st shot on any DG animal should be 50yards or less.

Click to expand...

You are in educated majority. I was thinking the same. DG is close range affair.

And then, I had a chance in the open on ele and on the buff at 100 meters.
I took the chance.
Successfully.

The point is: be ready for every eventuality, and be ready for longer shots - bolt action has advantage in my opinion.

It can happen that you are tracking for days, and the chance appears at longer distance on the very last day. There will be no more time to pick and choose.

BruceS said:

Interesting discussion. Here's my 2 cents. Do not like 375, bow or single shot rifle for DG. DG calibers start with 4 or more. Bolt action(crf) great, although someday would love a double. Im probably in the minority, but I think 1st shot on any DG animal should be 50yards or less.

Click to expand...

That is the theory, but in practice you sometimes have to be willing to make compromises and, as @mark-hunter wrote, even shoot a buffalo at 100 meters or more. This assumes that a cartridge suitable for this is used and that you know perfectly the ballistics of this cartridge.

ThinusS said:

I hunt alone when I hunt myself, no tracker or backup. Obviously, when I PH, I have my client with me, but in this case, he/she is the hunter and I carry an appropriate rifle. I have never bow hunted, however, for a few years I hunted using a .357 magnum revolver with 4" barrel and open sights. I hunted a fallow deer, half a dozen warthog and a springbok. I limited myself to 30-meter shots and that made for very challenging hunting. My closest shot was a warthog boar at 7 paces. The springbok hunt was one of the most challenging hunts of my career as a hunter.

Then one day, a friend who is a very experienced hunter and PH, asked me if that 4" .357 with open sights would be the gun I would pick for following up an animal that I wounded with it? I have not hunted with it since.

Is it ethical or even sensible to start a hunt with a weapon that you would not trust to finish that hunt if something went wrong? I would most certainly not follow a wounded buffalo, or even a warthog, with a bow.

Click to expand...

I’m sure I missed something in translation.

But why did you feel following up a wounded warthog or springbok with a .357 is not suitable?

Of course you wouldn’t hunt or follow up DG with a .357. But why not Springbok?

Because of the limited effective range of this gun, there is an excellent chance that you will not be able to get close enough to the now fully alert, wounded animal to deliver a killing shot. Also, you are very limited as to the angles you can deliver a disabling shot. With a rifle with a premium bullet, I would be able to down a fleeing, wounded, animal with a shot directly from behind or at an extreme angle. Neither a .357 magnum handgun nor a bow can do that reliably.
And yes, the first shot is the most important and you should not shoot if you are not 100% sure of your shot but in real life, things do go wrong and for me, losing a wounded animal because I chose to use a weapon that was not up to finishing the job, if something went wrong, is not acceptable.

Thank you. That clears it up. That’s good reasoning. If you are not capable of stalking quietly into range or shooting far enough. Then a follow up would be tough.

Killing large and dangerous game with marginal or even completely outdated obsolete weapons is, in most cases, only possible because the hunter is not alone but accompanied by a PH for backup. This is true in almost all African countries and worldwide. Since the topic concerns Inconsistency and Hypocrisy, all those who make numerous claims about the effectiveness of all their marginal equipment used for hunting large and dangerous game should consider this. There are certainly some heroes who go alone with bow and arrows for example, for hunting such game in various countries worldwide. How they protect themselves and are prepared for anything that might happen, I don't know, but perhaps more people should admit that something else very efficient and powerful is also carried along, and is used not so rarely for finish the job.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT. OR DEVILS ADVOCATE


The hypocrisy does not only involve weapon size or effectiveness/efficiency.

I think most realize it’s not only a weapon choice demands a back up. For instance many repeatedly state that bow hunters or single shot rifle hunter relied on PH for safety and follow up and couldn’t do it alone.

If we are using the “ could you do it without backup” analogy.

The more important question or admonition should be made before the shot.

Could you have gotten to make a shot at all without the PH and more importantly the trackers? Most hunting shows and hunters I’ve seen with my own eyes walk and stalk like a pregnant Yak.

So why so much concern for rugged individualism for bow hunters and single shot rifle hunters. When not many rifle hunters would get a shot at all without “backup” during the stalk.

When bow hunting moose in Alaska or elk in Wyoming or Montana is it cheating to carry a handgun or have a friend carry a long gun as backup and keep watch while butchering the animal.

When I’m hunting Africa with a bow or rifle. I always feel that I am only a team member. And usually the least significant team member at that. The trigger puller.

Altitude sickness said:

When I’m hunting Africa with a bow or rifle. I always feel that I am only a team member. And usually the least significant team member at that. The trigger puller.

Click to expand...

You are the very reason the team exist in the first place. I would call that quite significant.

@ThinusS, of course you are correct that the reason for the hunting group to be together started as a financial transaction. But the OP and other comments suggest that if a hunter cannot follow up on a bad shot he shouldn’t be hunting with that weapon.

If that’s a new rule than many leopard, lion hunters would be banned from the first shot. If the PH prefers to follow them up alone without needing to babysit an unreliable hunter. Or poor shot.

I guess my overall point is. There are people and hunters I would trust beside me tracking any animal even if they were armed with only a knife.

And there are other hunters that I wouldn’t want to be near during their first shot let alone follow ups. Competency and skill with any weapon are more important to me.

A skilled bow hunter can have a tracker carry a follow up rifle if needed. What is the remedy for a poorly skilled rifle hunter? Which I suggest the latter is more common.

Again for me it’s “the Indian not the bow”

Everyone needs to start somewhere. It is unrealistic to expect a first-time hunter to function as well as an experienced hunter functions under pressure. And the only way to become experienced is to actually partake in the experience, guided by an experienced hunter. That is what PH's and trackers are for.
The only way to make the sport of hunting grow is to attract new hunters to hunting and new hunters will obviously not be experienced when they start hunting.
Which is not to say that new hunters should not prepare for their hunts.

I agree completely Sir. But that was not the topic or pushback by some that the weapon choice should exclude a hunter from hunting DG.

So if we combine the two points and use a new hunter. I would agree 100% a new bow hunter has no place starting with DG.

Just as a low skilled or poor shot has no place in hunting DG. But we see A Lot of that.

regarding the OP's question re: caliber size, and hypocrisy:

plains game is one thing, but use enough gun to do a ethical job on the target animal.

on DG use a proper caliber, shoot very well and use good bullets.

re DG; i have never wished for a smaller gun or less bullets.

I am not a bowhunter anymore. I have shoulder problems, and I am thinking about doing crossbow where legal to help get into some archery hunts that are not available with a gun. So I am not going to talk about that.

Mostly I am a rifle hunter, 99.99% of the time anyway.

Saying that, I only know of a couple of things that cause animals to die. CNS disruption or loss of blood to a level that the brain turns off.

You can do this with any bullet and any caliber.

Hydrostatic damage caused by high velocity and a frangible bullet that creates tons of damage is well known for the bang flop.

Harder construction bullets Swift A-Frames, Barnes-X, solids, ETC most kill by blood loss or if in the absolute right area disruption of the CNS by brain, neck or high shoulder shots in heavier animals.

A 243 will kill an elk, 100% of the time if you place the bullet in the heart, lungs or disrupt the CNS. If you don't then you might lose it.

A 700 Nitro will kill an elk, 100% of the time if you place it int he. heart, lungs or disrupt the CNS. Same story, bad shot and you might lose it. Even if it bleeds out on the top of a hill 3 mountains over.

I prefer fast 6.5/257 on deer size things.

I prefer fast 300/8mm/338 on elk/zebra/kudu sized things.

I have not shot anything bigger than elk/zebra/kudu so I don't have any words of wisdom on bison/eland/Cape buffalo. though I have seen quite a few bison shot with 30-06.

A 6mm bullet at 2800-3000 FPS will do 95% of what either one of the above will.

The problem is bad shots. A 30 is a bigger hole.

I like Bang Flops. Everything else can be problematic.

I have spent a lot of time researching this and looking at my own hunting career of several hundred big game animals. I prefer the rifles I prefer for the reasons I prefer them.

Many of us are older hunters and know that wound placement and to inflict extreme damage on the right place is crucial for killing something instantly, regardless of the instrument used, be it edged weapons, bows, crossbows or firearms. Unfortunately, we don't always succeed at this, and that is where the much rougher tools of all this weapon classes make the difference.

I have zero dog in this fight but I have always scratched my head when someone claims a smaller cartridge is the “perfect” women/youth gun for the same animal the guy needs a 577 Tyrranasaur for. Dunno…

I know I've said this before, but, on my first hunt to RSA there was a "cull hunt" going on while we were hunting.



Someone killed a Blue Wildebeest with a rifle that had 7 broadheads in it!


Great for the landowner!

Too bad for the "archers." I guess they were rewarded with the trophy fees.

The entire scope this topic has been investigated for a century at least. African game departments set minimum standards based on documented experience with rifles development spanning 100 yrs. The bow hunting crowd may have a slight learning curve left, but not much. I have read of ranch requirements for arrows of a certain weight and strength to be used on DG, as well as on larger PG. Perhaps governments even have such regulations. When they have it down to grams in arrow weight and broad head selection, it is getting pretty close to settled/codified.

It is not about hypocrisy, IMO, just game field science about what safely and reliably kills.

The 22 long rifle will kill any animal on the planet if the shot is placed correctly. It should be the legal minimum for DG!

Back in the late 70’s or early 80’s, A-Square had an advertisement flyer that had a saying that stuck with me: “Put a good bullet, in the right place, with the most power practical.”
I’ve amended that to some degree to: Put a good bullet in the right place from a a firearm suitable for the game and conditions being hunted. That said, I tend not to use “minimum” cartridges but I do feel the .375, although considered a minimum for DG by law in some areas, is designated as such because it is the smallest round that has proven it can handle the job in most instances.