Inconsistency and Hypocrisy in What Is Enough Gun for Large Animals

[Rare Breed]

I'm curious what makes people very against moderate sized calibers for hunting large animals, but the same people are ok with using a bow on those same animals?
I'm speaking of any large animal, but it does seem extra odd in the case of animals like buffalo. A lot of people have voiced that even the .375 is underpowered. Some even argue that it is unethical to the animal and puts people at horrible unnecessary risk. But, then someone says they got a nice buffalo with their bow and everyone cheers it on.

Outfitters will often have the client shoot many extra times on a large animal with a decent sized rifle to make sure there is no extra risk of danger, and also so it does run further away and cause more work. But, often shot with a bow, they give time, and do their best not to follow up with a rifle. Sometimes following up with an extra arrow or two.

A .223 or 5.56 round creates temporary cavitation which destroys organs, blood vessels, etc in its wake to 4.5-6 inches. That's wider than a Broadhead, and would do it with massively more energy than a bow. But, obviously if someone shot a very large animal, especially buffalo with that round or wanted to, they would be chastised and mocked. But with a bow, they are exalted. Even if they said they would stick to bow ranges.

Additionally, many people have said they don't think a bolt action is a good idea on dangerous game because of time to reload, and that a double is much better because you can have a second shot almost immediately. But the general hunting population seems to really like and enjoy when people take their single, like a Ruger #1 with them for large animals, even DG.

To me, all these things seem at odds with themselves. I'm interested in hearing a discussion of why you are ok with bow hunting large or DG, but not a .375 (or even smaller, if it were legal, say a 30-06). Or why you are not ok with a CRF bolt action, but are ok with a Ruger #1 single shot, or similar.

Or any other similar conversation about logical contradictions when it comes to hunting.

Forget caliber for a moment or even a bow. Through every thread on AH you will see two truths. 1. Nothing is more important than making your first shot a killing one and 2. If you do not have a stopping rifle if you mess up on point#1 you better ensure your PH is backing you with one

 

[JohnCZ]

I think the old standard 9.3x62 Mauser should be the accepted minimum, I am basing this off text as I have not shot a buffalo, however have been around big and in some cases cranky bovine and size matters.

Lots would have been shot with less but that is what I think a sensible minimum should be. There is a lot to say about modern bullet construction however I would still want some frontal diameter, maybe a good heavy 0.338" today would do the job as well.

If you are going down the size matters and bows with broadheads work differently route we should consider a maximum range for rifles as well as bows for all hunting to match calibres. Todays young hunters has been led to believe that if you can hit it the bullet will magically kill and perform perfectly, nothing could be further from the truth

 

[deewayne2003]

I feel the same about undersized as I do oversized calibers, you can tell when people are not being honest with themselves.

I’m yet to see an elephant hunt video where a .600ne shooter actually makes the brain shot their attempting.

Roy Weatherby shot a Cape Buffalo with a .257Wby; but there is a big difference between a marketing stunt and real world ethics.

 

[farmer_john]

I hunt alone when I hunt myself, no tracker or backup. 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 with a bow.

I feel the same about undersized as I do oversized calibers, you can tell when people are not being honest with themselves.

I’m yet to see an elephant hunt video where a .600ne shooter actually makes the brain shot their attempting.

Roy Weatherby shot a Cape Buffalo with a .257Wby; but there is a big difference between a marketing stunt and real world ethics.

Ive also found that most people over estimate their capabilities.

 

[DaddyFlip]

Others have said (correctly) that an arrow (of appropriate weight and broadhead diameter) kills differently than a bullet. The bowhunter MUST get within close range to draw, much less to be effective; gun hunters do shoot at DG from distances much further than most proponents would like, which is just one reason why larger calibers are specified.

Any doofus can take a pot shot at an animal with a rifle and there are countless videos proving this out. Most (not all) bowhunters have a higher level of discipline; anyone taking a bow to Africa for DG, more often than not, is a serious individual with the skill and preparation to make a mortal and humane shot.

I don't think it's hypocrisy but reality; outfitters/PH's/rules/laws have to be written for the lowest common denominator. It would be better that Elmer NOT be able to handle a 375 or above and eliminated from the hunter pool than to allow Elmer to bring his 243 to a DG hunt and wound an unrecoverable animal.

Almost all, if not all, client hunters today are backed up by a PH. Few client hunters are able to afford a workable double. There is no disadvantage to the bolt gun for a client; there is minimal disadvantage to the single shot IF the hunter client has practiced his reload. Watch videos; hunters scramble/stumble/fumble their reloads even when an animal is down and they're preparing for the insurance shot with the PH alongside. I suppose many/most hunters don't prepare for the high stress/adrenaline situation. What I like about the best videos is the PH who is constantly talking to their client about "safety on," "reload," "shoot again," "breathe," etc. Even if the situation is not dangerous, adrenaline as a result of the unknown makes the brain and the body not know what to do.

Some of the other things you mention, like CRF vs. push feed vs. single shot, etc. are a combination of myth, lore, experience, reality, practicality, rules of the road, tale of the tape... Apparently, you can kill DG with a spear; you can probably kill one by shoving an M80 in its rear. You want to do that or you want to do what most folks do?

I am not a hunter but a keen observer of hunters.

 

[Raven]

I'm a proponent of using the largest calibers possible on large, dangerous animals. Provided, of course, you're trained and don't suffer too much from the recoil.

I've seen hunters' overconfidence backfire many times. For example, last September, a friend and I went bear hunting. I strongly recommended he bring a 9.3 caliber or higher. But he was confident and went with a 7.62. He ended up wounding two bears, but both escaped. My friend had to pay full price for them, as if they were trophies. Was his experiment worth the money? I don't think so. And if he had listened to me from the start and gone with a 9.3, things might have turned out much better for him.

As for throwing weapons, I've shot wild boars with a crossbow. But I wouldn't go after a bear with a crossbow.

 

[DaddyFlip]

I'm a proponent of using the largest calibers possible on large, dangerous animals. Provided, of course, you're trained and don't suffer too much from the recoil.

I've seen hunters' overconfidence backfire many times. For example, last September, a friend and I went bear hunting. I strongly recommended he bring a 9.3 caliber or higher. But he was confident and went with a 7.62. He ended up wounding two bears, but both escaped. My friend had to pay full price for them, as if they were trophies. Was his experiment worth the money? I don't think so. And if he had listened to me from the start and gone with a 9.3, things might have turned out much better for him.

As for throwing weapons, I've shot wild boars with a crossbow. But I wouldn't go after a bear with a crossbow.

Can you comment on the reason for this confidence? Did the friend not own a more capable caliber? I'm not a hunter, but I know were I invited to go bear hunting, I would be bringing a bear caliber in 375, 416, or heavy 45-70 (in the calibers I currently own).

 

[Raven]

Can you comment on the reason for this confidence? Did the friend not own a more capable caliber? I'm not a hunter, but I know were I invited to go bear hunting, I would be bringing a bear caliber in 375, 416, or heavy 45-70 (in the calibers I currently own).

His confidence was driven by his lack of bear hunting experience. Unfortunately, this happens often. He really wanted to shoot a bear, but he had no idea how resilient and strong they were.

He had plenty of time to prepare—eight months. During that time, he could have purchased a more suitable caliber gun and practiced shooting. But he decided that since he often shoots wild boar and moose with a 7.62, he wouldn't have any problems with bears either.

I usually shoot bears with a .375 H&H, but this time I took my Blaser S2 double rifle in .470 NE. It's not the most suitable weapon for the north, but I was interested in using it. And I succeeded. I took two bears.

My friend, however, lost money and didn't get any trophies. But he has no one to blame but himself.

 

[chonk34]

I think that bullets and broadheads kill in different ways. An archery hunter with a strong enough bow, shooting the right arrow, within the right range, and hitting the right spot at an appropriate angle should be able to put down a buffalo. I would have to shoot many, many more arrows with my bow and be much more comfortable in real non-DG hunting situations before I would dream of trying a DG hunt with a primitive weapon. It is not likely something I will attempt in my lifetime.

A guy who is on the periphery of my hunting circle was mauled by a buffalo he'd shot through the heart and lungs with his crossbow an hour earlier in 2018, only surviving because he was able to wedge between some trees and a rock before the outfitter was able to finish it off with a rifle. He went back after rehabbing his crushed knee and successfully killed a bull with his crossbow, but the risk is high and the tolerances for success are low. This is a much more experienced and accomplished hunter than me, and he still nearly became a statistic even with what anecdotally should have been a killing shot.

Should making the attempt be allowed and/or celebrated? I don't know. There are archery hunters out there who seem pretty successful. Do you need to consider the risk that the outfitter, the guide, and the trackers are taking on to get you that much closer to a dangerous animal? Definitely.

You can find a story for just about every caliber and game combination there is. Is it possible to kill a world-record bear with a .22? It happened in 1953. Can a trail runner choke out a juvenile mountain lion with their bare hands? It happened in 2019. Should you go out and try to replicate those feats? Probably not.

With the amount of literature available now you can pretty well dial in the appropriate range of calibers to ethically hunt the game you're chasing and plan/train accordingly, especially for a recreational hunt. Shot placement is key. Knowing your equipment is essential. If you are proficient at reloading your single-shot in a high-stress situation you're probably more reliable than a bolt-action hunter who hasn't practiced outside of a five-shot zero from a bench before jumping on the plane. There's not a clean flowchart that takes into account the experience and preparation of the individual pulling the trigger. A shot that is routine for someone else might be well outside my own ethical range.

 

[Beck]

It feels like you're trying to create a confrontation that does not exist.

 

[Flbt]

Others have said (correctly) that an arrow (of appropriate weight and broadhead diameter) kills differently than a bullet. The bowhunter MUST get within close range to draw, much less to be effective; gun hunters do shoot at DG from distances much further than most proponents would like, which is just one reason why larger calibers are specified.

Any doofus can take a pot shot at an animal with a rifle and there are countless videos proving this out. Most (not all) bowhunters have a higher level of discipline; anyone taking a bow to Africa for DG, more often than not, is a serious individual with the skill and preparation to make a mortal and humane shot.

I don't think it's hypocrisy but reality; outfitters/PH's/rules/laws have to be written for the lowest common denominator. It would be better that Elmer NOT be able to handle a 375 or above and eliminated from the hunter pool than to allow Elmer to bring his 243 to a DG hunt and wound an unrecoverable animal.

Almost all, if not all, client hunters today are backed up by a PH. Few client hunters are able to afford a workable double. There is no disadvantage to the bolt gun for a client; there is minimal disadvantage to the single shot IF the hunter client has practiced his reload. Watch videos; hunters scramble/stumble/fumble their reloads even when an animal is down and they're preparing for the insurance shot with the PH alongside. I suppose many/most hunters don't prepare for the high stress/adrenaline situation. What I like about the best videos is the PH who is constantly talking to their client about "safety on," "reload," "shoot again," "breathe," etc. Even if the situation is not dangerous, adrenaline as a result of the unknown makes the brain and the body not know what to do.

Some of the other things you mention, like CRF vs. push feed vs. single shot, etc. are a combination of myth, lore, experience, reality, practicality, rules of the road, tale of the tape... Apparently, you can kill DG with a spear; you can probably kill one by shoving an M80 in its rear. You want to do that or you want to do what most folks do?

I am not a hunter but a keen observer of hunters.

I think you are wrong about the laws and rules. From what I have seen lately the people writing the laws / rules have no idea what there doing.
Our muzzle loader min cal has been dropped to .30 cal why Fwc guy said .30 the limit on air rifles so why not?
25 acp Is a legal big game round to.
And yes I have a “hunter “ trying to use one

And from bow hunters I have seen I would not say there more serious or better than the gun hunters. Most of them I ask said they wanted to be able to shoot does. That was the #1 answer to why did you start bow hunting.

 

[Flbt]

As far as bow vs modern gun killing different.
I think muzzle loader and to a lesser extent handgun and moser black powder cartridge rifles kill different than modern guns.

The ml and bpc do not expand or have the flbs of energy
They poke big holes in game but they don’t expand or have the energy.

 

[DaddyFlip]

I think you are wrong about the laws and rules. From what I have seen lately the people writing the laws / rules have no idea what there doing.
Our muzzle loader min cal has been dropped to .30 cal why Fwc guy said .30 the limit on air rifles so why not?
25 acp Is a legal big game round to.
And yes I have a “hunter “ trying to use one

And from bow hunters I have seen I would not say there more serious or better than the gun hunters. Most of them I ask said they wanted to be able to shoot does. That was the #1 answer to why did you start bow hunting.

You appear to be speaking of NA deer hunting in general? If yes, I agree with you; the general bow and especially muzzleloader/blackpowder rules have become a joke. I was speaking specifically of African DG hunting.

 

[dogcat1]

Big hole in the right place = DRT
I like a large pass through.
Forget about saving meat. In Africa, there is plenty and the folks there eat guts, feathers and all.
Not the best thread.

 

[lhook7]

Please post a hunt report when you test your theory.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I'm curious what makes people very against moderate sized calibers for hunting large animals, but the same people are ok with using a bow on those same animals?
I'm speaking of any large animal, but it does seem extra odd in the case of animals like buffalo. A lot of people have voiced that even the .375 is underpowered. Some even argue that it is unethical to the animal and puts people at horrible unnecessary risk. But, then someone says they got a nice buffalo with their bow and everyone cheers it on.

Outfitters will often have the client shoot many extra times on a large animal with a decent sized rifle to make sure there is no extra risk of danger, and also so it does run further away and cause more work. But, often shot with a bow, they give time, and do their best not to follow up with a rifle. Sometimes following up with an extra arrow or two.

A .223 or 5.56 round creates temporary cavitation which destroys organs, blood vessels, etc in its wake to 4.5-6 inches. That's wider than a Broadhead, and would do it with massively more energy than a bow. But, obviously if someone shot a very large animal, especially buffalo with that round or wanted to, they would be chastised and mocked. But with a bow, they are exalted. Even if they said they would stick to bow ranges.

Additionally, many people have said they don't think a bolt action is a good idea on dangerous game because of time to reload, and that a double is much better because you can have a second shot almost immediately. But the general hunting population seems to really like and enjoy when people take their single, like a Ruger #1 with them for large animals, even DG.

To me, all these things seem at odds with themselves. I'm interested in hearing a discussion of why you are ok with bow hunting large or DG, but not a .375 (or even smaller, if it were legal, say a 30-06). Or why you are not ok with a CRF bolt action, but are ok with a Ruger #1 single shot, or similar.

Or any other similar conversation about logical contradictions when it comes to hunting.

While I can see where a broadhead would be more lethal than a .223 (they penetrate much more than the tiny rifle) I tend to.agree with you on what is appropriate. Personally, so do not think that using a bow, handgun, single shot or muzzle loader is a good idea for big, heavy, dangerous game. Although I have used those weapons to hunt smaller animals, I can't help but feel that using them to take a buffalo, hippo, elephant, etc. verges on a dare devil stunt.

 

[BruceS]

I'm curious what makes people very against moderate sized calibers for hunting large animals, but the same people are ok with using a bow on those same animals?
I'm speaking of any large animal, but it does seem extra odd in the case of animals like buffalo. A lot of people have voiced that even the .375 is underpowered. Some even argue that it is unethical to the animal and puts people at horrible unnecessary risk. But, then someone says they got a nice buffalo with their bow and everyone cheers it on.

Outfitters will often have the client shoot many extra times on a large animal with a decent sized rifle to make sure there is no extra risk of danger, and also so it does run further away and cause more work. But, often shot with a bow, they give time, and do their best not to follow up with a rifle. Sometimes following up with an extra arrow or two.

A .223 or 5.56 round creates temporary cavitation which destroys organs, blood vessels, etc in its wake to 4.5-6 inches. That's wider than a Broadhead, and would do it with massively more energy than a bow. But, obviously if someone shot a very large animal, especially buffalo with that round or wanted to, they would be chastised and mocked. But with a bow, they are exalted. Even if they said they would stick to bow ranges.

Additionally, many people have said they don't think a bolt action is a good idea on dangerous game because of time to reload, and that a double is much better because you can have a second shot almost immediately. But the general hunting population seems to really like and enjoy when people take their single, like a Ruger #1 with them for large animals, even DG.

To me, all these things seem at odds with themselves. I'm interested in hearing a discussion of why you are ok with bow hunting large or DG, but not a .375 (or even smaller, if it were legal, say a 30-06). Or why you are not ok with a CRF bolt action, but are ok with a Ruger #1 single shot, or similar.

Or any other similar conversation about logical contradictions when it comes to hunting.

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.

 

[DLSJR]

Can you comment on the reason for this confidence? Did the friend not own a more capable caliber? I'm not a hunter, but I know were I invited to go bear hunting, I would be bringing a bear caliber in 375, 416, or heavy 45-70 (in the calibers I currently own).

And when I hunted Brown Bears on Kodiak, my guide for part of the hunt carried a 300 Winchester as his backup gun. The guide for the last part of my hunt carried a 30-06. Go figure.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I don’t think you can compare bullets and arrows. They kill differently. I think you could discuss archery hunters vs rifle hunters. I really object to the wounding rate I see from archery hunters. I also object to long range hunting. That comes down to a hunter’s decisions I disagree with more so than the equipment in most cases.

I’m not necessarily against moderate cartridges taking larger game, but I think there is an acceptable range. I see no need to step outside of that. Certain cartridges have proven they have the energy to cleanly and efficiently kill game. Certain bullets have proven penetration and performance on game when paired up with those calibers. I take a pretty strong objection to someone saying a 223 is suitable for all game because of a 77 gr TMK bullet when many hunters don’t have the discipline to wait for a perfect shot or don’t understand why their 55 gr varmit bullet isn’t the same. I take the same objection to those here saying you need a 458+ on buffalo to find out they only use solids or cup and core bullets to form their opinion. I’ll take something in the middle 270-375 with bonded bullets for all game. It’s proven in most hunting situations last 100 years made better with new bullets. I don’t care if you use a bolt, double, or single shot to hunt.

You left out lever.

(Just kidding)

 

[Bejane]

I'm curious what makes people very against moderate sized calibers for hunting large animals, but the same people are ok with using a bow on those same animals?
I'm speaking of any large animal, but it does seem extra odd in the case of animals like buffalo. A lot of people have voiced that even the .375 is underpowered. Some even argue that it is unethical to the animal and puts people at horrible unnecessary risk. But, then someone says they got a nice buffalo with their bow and everyone cheers it on.

Outfitters will often have the client shoot many extra times on a large animal with a decent sized rifle to make sure there is no extra risk of danger, and also so it does run further away and cause more work. But, often shot with a bow, they give time, and do their best not to follow up with a rifle. Sometimes following up with an extra arrow or two.

A .223 or 5.56 round creates temporary cavitation which destroys organs, blood vessels, etc in its wake to 4.5-6 inches. That's wider than a Broadhead, and would do it with massively more energy than a bow. But, obviously if someone shot a very large animal, especially buffalo with that round or wanted to, they would be chastised and mocked. But with a bow, they are exalted. Even if they said they would stick to bow ranges.

Additionally, many people have said they don't think a bolt action is a good idea on dangerous game because of time to reload, and that a double is much better because you can have a second shot almost immediately. But the general hunting population seems to really like and enjoy when people take their single, like a Ruger #1 with them for large animals, even DG.

To me, all these things seem at odds with themselves. I'm interested in hearing a discussion of why you are ok with bow hunting large or DG, but not a .375 (or even smaller, if it were legal, say a 30-06). Or why you are not ok with a CRF bolt action, but are ok with a Ruger #1 single shot, or similar.

Or any other similar conversation about logical contradictions when it comes to hunting.

Hi Sabre, I think if outfitters were unhappy with the 375 then they would lobby their associations, who in turn would take it to Govt to change policy on min calibres. They haven't, and that's because 375 is fine, modern bullets make it even better. The folks that say the 375 is underpowered are actually letting in on their lack of understanding, and their opinons should be disregarded entrirely.

I've seen alot of hunters shooting the animal incorrectly, behind the shoulder, even when quartering on. It's all about shot placement.