I know that African plains game can easily be taken with a host of smaller calibres, such as 7mms or .30 cals, and as Tarbe stated, it is hard to get more 'African' than a .300 H&H Magnum.
That said, I have shot almost all of my plains game, from warthog and impala up to zebra, kudu and sable with a .375. I like the idea of taking a .375 because, with the right bullets, it is just as flat shooting as a .30/06 but has a lot more authority. However, the big advantage of taking a .375 is that you have a rifle that is suitable for the big five should an unexpected opportunity present itself - such as a problem animal or a cull being offered to you. True, this doesn't happen very often (almost never, in fact) but it has happened to me and I fortunately I had the equipment to accept the opportunity - I would hate to miss the chance because I had a .30 calibre instead of a .375.
One other huge advantage of the .375 is that you can always buy more ammo if you need it, almost anywhere!
In regards to having open sights on your rifle - I will not have a rifle that doesn't have open sights fitted to back up the scope, and my scopes are always mounted in QD rings. While it is unlikely that a quality scope will fail on your hunt, it is a possibility and after spending a fortune on your safari, it would be a terrible shame to pin all of your chances on a single sighting system - I am a huge believer in redundancy. Indeed, a lot of my hunting rifles have multiple sighting options: open sights, a quality riflescope in QD rings and a red-dot sight in a QD mount as well; which means that I am equipped for all situations.
Some of my favourite hunting rifles are older model BRNO ZKK series rifles which have four (4) sighting options: folding rear open sight, pop-up aperture, scope in QDs and a red-dot in QDs - I told you that I like having redundancy in my sighting systems!
Accordingly, I do not understand why rifle manufacturers produce so many rifle models that are supplied without open sights and why so many hunters put all their faith in one sighting system - it doesn't make sense to me.
Hello Bwanabob,
Except for the fact that I have no experience with today's red-dot sights and therefore do not own one, I am with you on the above subject, all of it.
You have spoken wise words on this thread topic.
If I had to spend the rest of my life with but one big game rifle in hand to tramp the earth, it would be a Mauser or reasonable copy in .375 H&H with sturdy 4x scope in claw mounts or serious lever rings and equipped with iron sights.
My favorite .375 these past few years has been my Brno 602 Magnum - extremely reliable and shockingly accurate, these days besides the factory iron sights, it has a Zeiss 4x in Alaska lever rings but one day I do plan to have it claw mounted.
Likewise, I have pondered why so many rifles are made without iron sights.
The only conclusion I can figure out is two fold:
1. Most folks do not care for iron sights and rely heavily (or 100%) on a telescopic sight.
Perhaps they do not understand how to use irons or perhaps some folks eyesight is none too good (my eyes are not as sharp as they used to be, now that I am a prune faced old man but I can shoot iron sights better than most young men, at least in daylight anyway).
Some folks will even tell you they think a rifle looks better with no sights on it at all, except a scope.
To me, a rifle without iron sights looks like it was not ready to leave the factory yet.
Such a half baked rifle reminds me of a bicycle without a seat.
2. It may be that rifle companies save a few rupees by leaving off parts and pieces (like Ruger does by leaving off some steel in the making of all these latest proprietary short magnum cartridge/calibers, so that they do not have to make larger/more steel required - more expensive magnum actions any more).
Anywhoo, keep your powder dry mate,
Velo Dog.
