Is Bigger Always Better?

Good read Karl very well written, Deon are you reffering to me and my 375 H&H?

Karl, with the info you are getting on kills how about a article on terminal bullet performance between the various bullet manufacturers.
Don't know if you recall our chat long ago of which bullet made more internal damage Swift or Barnes?
 
Hahahaha Frederik, no, you had sense and bought a bigger gun!

Some other people I know.....
 
A wealth of experience, and knowledge of basic physics is a rare combination for any hunter.....and I salute you for a fine article. Failure to appreciate the difference between energy and the work done by that energy is the most common misconception, and you clarified that nicely. Thanks for sharing......FWB
 
Karl,
This is excellent information. Thanks for the hard work to put an article like this together! There are many good points in here.
Philip
 
I found that article one of the best I have read. I was a little surprised that the " little 375HH" outscored all the other calibers for one shot kills. Kind of debunked the 416 -500 hype. I think a good bit is the shooter. Too many have the idea that they need a shoulder fired super boomer and end up not being able to handle the recoil. That does not make for good shooting. Accuracy trumps noise and recoil so one is better off using something managable instead of lugging around something to stroke the ego..
 
gosh, cannot resist, as per the title,

it depends on her name and if you ask her. :)
 
now,

that off my chest, very well done article. facts, just the facts. energy does not kill stuff, long holes thru vitals do. nicely done.
 
I thought this group may enjoy this article I wrote in the latest African Gazette.
A link to that particular issue (of which Divan Labuschagne, one of our great PHs, also took the cover picture):
View attachment 378663


Let me know your thoughts....
View attachment 378659View attachment 378660View attachment 378661
Good article. Karamojo Bell had a few words to say on this subject and stated it didn't matter whether the animal was hit with a 250gr or 800gr bullet, if it didn't hit the vitals the animal didn't die. Found an interesting article on the Book Your Hunt blog worth reading and this quote from Bell "when an elephant was hit in the right place with the .275 it died just as quickly as when hit with the .400, and, vice versa, when the bullet from either rifle was wrongly placed death did not ensue."
Perhaps this is why it is said the .375 is the most popular caliber for Africa.
 
Thank you for sharing Karl!
Makes one rethink the 'need' for a caliber larger than .375

I also wonder if the same could be said about the other dangerous game such as elephant, land hippo and rhino. Especially for a frontal charge, would the .375 still be the 'best' option?
 
If hit in the CNS a solid from a 308 or similar will stop and land animal. If not, the bigger the better. A buffalo shot through the lungs with a 375 is going to die, but it may take a bit of time, particularly when the beast is pumped up with adrenaline, and in that time a lot can happen. Calibers do matter which is why there are legal minimums. In 1953 a lady called Bella Twin shot a record Grizzly with a 22lr rifle. It obviously can be done but I sure wouldn’t try it.
 
@ndumo HUNTING SAFARIS
Thank you very much Karl for your excellent and well written article. I will unapologetically resurrect this excellent thread after a few years and ask a question.
With similarly well placed shots, let’s say broadside double lung shots where structural bone was not hit, would the larger .40+ calibres be more effective than the 9.3/.375 “peewee” calibres?
For the record my lone buffalo cow that I have hunted was with a .375 H&H with a 300gr TSX @2550fps and it dropped to the single frontal chest shot
 
I think a well placed 375 will do it all, it has, it will continue to do so.
 

Is Bigger Always Better?​


It is in all cases, but you only need to read the conclusion to understand where the problem lies.

If everything is the same in terms of weapons, bullet, shooting conditions, shot placement and especially the shooter, I can hardly imagine that an Big Bore is not superior to an smaller bore, since in all cases that will create larger wound channels than the smaller one.

The main problem lies in the handling of the Big Bore rifles. As noted in the article, many of these weapons are not equipped with scopes or are Double Rifles, which do not always impress with their accuracy and not always allow a good shot placement under bad shooting conditions. In addition, there is not in all cases a shooter who mastered more or less good his weapon in all situations, unfortunately sometimes worse than if he were to use a smaller caliber rifle with a scope, a weapon that would in all cases allow him to place the first shot better.

Such studies would have to be conducted with hunters who could handle smaller caliber weapons as well as larger caliber weapons and who then have to hunt in two groups with standardized equipment the same game under similar conditions. There would be completely different results than if you make a statistic with a heterogeneous group of hunters under different hunting conditions. I am convinced that the result of such a study would rather be that bigger is always better.
 
There would be completely different results than if you make a statistic with a heterogeneous group of hunters under different hunting conditions. I am convinced that the result of such a study would rather be that bigger is always better.

But where will you find such conditions that is what makes hunting so much fun as you never now what will happen where and when? It's not like a Palystation game where you know this time you will get that guy around the corner that killed you previously.
Not every animal acts the same and stand in that perfect situation everytime.

I'm all for bigger calibres and that is why I love shooting my 458 lott but the fact is not everybody hunter can handle bigger calibers.

So a new study should then be 20 or more hunters that each shoot and know their .40 + Cal rifles well and shoot at least 200 shots per year with them. Which would then be a result that only bears a very small percentage of the worlds population.
 
...Which would then be a result that only bears a very small percentage of the worlds population.
Yes, but this is the only way we can answer the question about the effectiveness of the caliber - if we eliminate all shooter errors, at least statistically.
 
I really like this quote from Sir Samuel White Baker in “Wild Beasts & Their Ways”:

“There can be little doubt that a man should not be overweighted, but that every person should be armed in proportion to his physical strength. If he is too light for a very heavy rifle he must select a smaller bore; if he is afraid of a No. 8 with 14 drams, he must be content with a No. 12 and 10 drams, but although he may be successful with the lighter weapon, he must not expect the performance will equal that of the superior power.”

And George P. Sanderson In “13 Years Amongst The Wild Beasts of India”:

“I advocate the use of the heaviest rifle the sportsman can manage upon all sorts of game. Yet it is not unusual to hear men express a decided opinion to the contrary, generally conveyed in the formula, "A small bore is big enough for anything." Such men should rather say, " I cannot carry a heavy gun," or, " I cannot shoot with one," than speak against them on principle.“

Even though both of these authors are from the 19th century, their assessment is still very much on point today. Just replace their blackpowder 8 bore and 12 bore rifles with .505 Gibbs (or any other big bore rifle) and .375 Holland & Holland Magnums (or the 9.3x62mm Mauser). And the principe is still very much the same.

The .375 Holland & Holland Magnum’s biggest advantage is that it has a very manageable recoil and a very flat trajectory. It’s penetration (assuming the right bullets are used) is perfectly adequate for the sort of shots at dangerous game which a client hunter will be needing to make. Knock down power is absolutely of no consequence to the client hunter, since it’s the white hunter who will be the one to normally deal with a potential charge or escaping game. For most visiting hunters on African safaris, they typically do all of their domestic hunting with some form of .30 caliber (such as the .30-06 Springfield or the .300 Winchester Magnum) and don’t have the experience to comfortably shoot a large bore rifle accurately. The .375 Holland & Holland Magnum and the 9.3x62mm Mauser are two calibers that really shine in this department. It’s very easy for the average client hunter to be able to shoot one accurately with very little practice.

I’ve personally been shooting 4 out of Africa’s Big 5 (Elephant, Cape buffalo, hippopotamus, lion) ever since 1974 with .375 Holland & Holland Magnum rifles over the years with successful results.
IMG_1790.jpeg
IMG_1793.jpeg
IMG_1798.jpeg
IMG_1377.jpeg
IMG_1787.jpeg
IMG_1795.jpeg
IMG_1794.jpeg
IMG_1356.jpeg
IMG_1354.jpeg
IMG_1353.jpeg
IMG_1355.jpeg
IMG_1530.jpeg
IMG_1801.jpeg
IMG_1791.jpeg
IMG_1537.jpeg

But I would not have the same level of confidence in this caliber if I was not being backed up by my white hunter (who invariably carries a heavier rifle). As a matter of fact, I did once almost lose a gigantic bull elephant which I shot 6 times in the heart-lung region with a .375 Holland & Holland Magnum and 300Gr Remington round nosed steel jacketed FMJ solids.

If I were ever to (hypothetically) hunt dangerous game without a white hunter present, then I would opt for some type of .500 caliber (such as the .505 Gibbs or the .500 Jeffery or the .500 A Square or the .500 Nitro Express). If elephant was not on the menu, then I would contend myself with some type of .450 caliber (such as the .450 Rigby or the .458 Lott or the .450 Nitro Express).

Since white hunters invariably shoot at dangerous game under unfavorable circumstances (such as having to shoot charging or departing game or having to follow up wounded dangerous game in areas with dense foliage and low visibility), the additional knock down power of the big bore is indispensable to them because they can’t afford to be picky with their shots (unlike a client hunter).

To conclude, bigger is definitely better but only if the operator can properly manage the recoil and shoot the rifle accurately. Otherwise, the big bore becomes counterproductive. A 600Gr solid bullet from a properly loaded .505 Gibbs will down an elephant quicker with a heart-lung shot than the same shot being taken on the same elephant with a 300Gr solid bullet from a properly loaded .375 Holland & Holland Magnum (assuming of course, that all other factors are equal). But in order to do that, the operator must be capable of firing the .505 Gibbs accurately and comfortably in the first place… something which comparatively few client hunters can do compared with those who are accurate shots with the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum.
 
Last edited:
I shot two buffalo with 375 ... and significantly less than 300 gr bullets. Killed them both thoroughly. When I decided to build my own rifle, 375 was first on my mind. But I chose 404 Jeffery instead. OAL is actually shorter meaning it's easier to fit into a standard 98 Mauser action. Recoil isn't as bad as 416 Rigby.

Choose a 375 that weighs ten pounds loaded and forget the brake. Whoever convinced you to buy 416 Weatherby is not your friend. Hard guns to find, very expensive to buy, brutal to shoot, and almost impossible to get your hands on the ammo. I wouldn't accept one as a gift. But hey, they sure are pretty.
 
is bigger always better?

The men almost always say no to this.
The ladies hold back with a smile when asked this question.
:A Outta:
 

Is Bigger Always Better?​


It is in all cases, but you only need to read the conclusion to understand where the problem lies.

If everything is the same in terms of weapons, bullet, shooting conditions, shot placement and especially the shooter, I can hardly imagine that an Big Bore is not superior to an smaller bore, since in all cases that will create larger wound channels than the smaller one.

The main problem lies in the handling of the Big Bore rifles. As noted in the article, many of these weapons are not equipped with scopes or are Double Rifles, which do not always impress with their accuracy and not always allow a good shot placement under bad shooting conditions. In addition, there is not in all cases a shooter who mastered more or less good his weapon in all situations, unfortunately sometimes worse than if he were to use a smaller caliber rifle with a scope, a weapon that would in all cases allow him to place the first shot better.

Such studies would have to be conducted with hunters who could handle smaller caliber weapons as well as larger caliber weapons and who then have to hunt in two groups with standardized equipment the same game under similar conditions. There would be completely different results than if you make a statistic with a heterogeneous group of hunters under different hunting conditions. I am convinced that the result of such a study would rather be that bigger is always better.


The main problem lies in the handling of the Big Bore rifles. As noted in the article, many of these weapons are not equipped with scopes or are Double Rifles, which do not always impress with their accuracy and not always allow a good shot placement under bad shooting conditions.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
58,207
Messages
1,251,392
Members
103,417
Latest member
MartinCalero
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Big areas means BIG ELAND BULLS!!
d5fd1546-d747-4625-b730-e8f35d4a4fed.jpeg
autofire wrote on LIMPOPO NORTH SAFARIS's profile.
Do you have any cull hunts available? 7 days, daily rate plus per animal price?
 
Top