thats why I dont like doubles (have one)

[Thomas Rutledge]

Thomas Rutledge: You are “dodging“ and Now changing your theme — skillfully enough that No Buffalo could ever stick a horn in You. No one suggests that you don’t review an accident but here the point of contention is that these Hunters handled this well, better then many would have (Not perfect because “perfect” does Not exist). Now here is an Outstanding analogy: In the Movie TOP GUN, Maverick goes into a “flat spin” crashes and costs the life of his CoPilot “Goose” but after a careful review he is “Cleared” and held Blameless. So I’m “clearing” these Hunters & PH under that same technical standard “Sh-t Happens”. What do you think of My analogy ? (Your choices are: Perfect, Good, or Too Stupid to Respond)

You dont get to pick my choices, I do. Cleared of what? What are you clearing the hunters of? Bad first shot? Cleared? I dont think so. They wouldn’t clear themselves either. They would debrief it and train more extensively for the next hunt. Cleared fouling up the reloads? Nope. Turning your back on and losing sight of a dangerous wounded animal in close proximity? Not cleared. They wouldn’t clear themselves either. They would refine their strategies to avoid that next time. Cleared of backing up against something solid with a wounded animal 15 feet away charging? Not that either. They would likely determine the best action was to position yourself behind something solid in their debrief. There are plenty of lessons to be learned here. Let’s not rob them of this opportunity to do better next time. None of this is condemnation. It’s just upping professional standards to do a better job next time. The more accurate top gun analogy would be this…Maverick and goose get chewed up by the instructors in one of the mock dog fights, In your world the instructors would say Sh-t happens in the debrief, that’s not the way it works. Training and improving professional standards is a lifelong endeavor. It never ends. The best people in any profession are always going to do it.

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Who would have been invited to that debrief? Some of the comments here are from individuals who have no relevant experience just a belief they would have done better in the situation. There is a big difference getting critiqued by professionals vs criticized by amateurs.

You would invite credible professionals. No one can predict how they would perform in any given situation so the best training and preparation will hopefully give you a leg up. Each event gives an opportunity to learn something and refine techniques.

 

[HankBuck]

You dont get to pick my choices, I do. Cleared of what? What are you clearing the hunters of? Bad first shot? Cleared? I dont think so. They wouldn’t clear themselves either. They would debrief it and train more extensively for the next hunt. Cleared fouling up the reloads? Nope. Turning your back on and losing sight of a dangerous wounded animal in close proximity? Not cleared. They wouldn’t clear themselves either. They would refine their strategies to avoid that next time. Cleared of backing up against something solid with a wounded animal 15 feet away charging? Not that either. They would likely determine the best action was to position yourself behind something solid in their debrief. There are plenty of lessons to be learned here. Let’s not rob them of this opportunity to do better next time. None of this is condemnation. It’s just upping professional standards to do a better job next time. The more accurate top gun analogy would be this…Maverick and goose get chewed up by the instructors in one of the mock dog fights, In your world the instructors would say Sh-t happens in the debrief, that’s not the way it works. Training and improving professional standards is a lifelong endeavor. It never ends. The best people in any profession are always going to do it.

Thomas Rutledge: Be a MAN and admit it - My Top Gun analogy was “Way Better” then yours…. and if you can’t acknowledge that - then we can no longer entertain the Video Hunting Game that you’ve mistaken for ”Real hunting”. Only in a Video Game does your post-hunt-recap apply any increased learnings that could be applied to the next “Real hunting” scenario because Real hunting is Never the same twice and even if you train 1000 times a week - Unlikely to ever handle that particular wounded buffalo scenario any better then those Hunters & PHs did.
Now, here’s where we agree - practice helps, drilling on “what if” and “likely scenarios” helps prepare and especially for new Hunters. I feel (don’t Know with absolute certainty) that a positive out come from repeated training and drilling - would look exactly like that video, Not perfect but Damn good job by All. You feel you could do better? I’d be thrilled To do half as well - would be looking for my own TV sponserships if that was me in the video. Now, lighten up, watch Top Gun again and acknowledge I’m “almost right”.

 

[grand veneur]

The extreme situations cannot be trained, the right decision at the last moment makes the difference whether you survive or not, but the line can be very thin. Anyone who has more practical experience on the wild is certainly at an advantage compared to someone who is exposed to the danger for the first time, but not always either. All fate has to be accepted or to stay at home in the armchair and to make comments from afar.

 

[Dan458]

The camera man is the MVP here

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Thomas Rutledge: Be a MAN and admit it - My Top Gun analogy was “Way Better” then yours…. and if you can’t acknowledge that - then we can no longer entertain the Video Hunting Game that you’ve mistaken for ”Real hunting”. Only in a Video Game does your post-hunt-recap apply any increased learnings that could be applied to the next “Real hunting” scenario because Real hunting is Never the same twice and even if you train 1000 times a week - Unlikely to ever handle that particular wounded buffalo scenario any better then those Hunters & PHs did.
Now, here’s where we agree - practice helps, drilling on “what if” and “likely scenarios” helps prepare and especially for new Hunters. I feel (don’t Know with absolute certainty) that a positive out come from repeated training and drilling - would look exactly like that video, Not perfect but Damn good job by All. You feel you could do better? I’d be thrilled To do half as well - would be looking for my own TV sponserships if that was me in the video. Now, lighten up, watch Top Gun again and acknowledge I’m “almost right”.

I’m not there yet!

 

[HankBuck]

I’m not there yet!

Fine by me - enjoyed your posts and exchanges !

 

[Rare Breed]

@Ontario Hunter in response to your point on shooting at paper with things vs buff or elephant Charging. I know what I can do with proper practice with which ever platform I will be using. I also know in my life that I have been in far worse situations than a buff or ele charge and know how to stand my ground. So my suggestion is I will work on my manual of arms for my double if that is what I am hunting DG with till I can reload running in the dark.

AZDAVE has taught me this after my lion hunt….He is a very wise man

 

[Franco]

With this logic any fighter pilot who gets his ass shot down did great. I dont think so. Debriefs have a purpose. Saying these guys did great when there are several obvious areas needing improvement serves no one. I have no doubt both of these guys would have plenty to say about what they could have done better and would likely welcome constructive criticism especially if they had missed something in their own analysis.

Thomas,
With respect to your opening sentence; it would really depend on several factors - nature of the mission, goal, purpose, perspective, and of course - level of acceptable collateral damage.

We, as westerners value our lives and therefore judge the successful outcome by being alive at the conclusion. But there are many examples to the contrary, the acts of 911, the Kamikaze pilots of WWII, suicide bombers - their level of greatness is measured NOT by their survival, but rather by the resultant damage inflicted.

Is it possible the "fighter pilot who got his ass shot down did great" - absolutely.

Agreed, debriefs have a purpose - they can be an excellent learning/teaching tool. To analyze from the perspective of multiple slow-motion rewinds on your computer is one thing, to judge without being part of the scenario is another.

You imply any fighter pilot who does NOT get their ass shot down has done great. Well, these two fighter pilots did not get their asses shot down, the buffalo did. So, didn't they do great?

Hunting Dangerous Game has inherent risks, and those of us who do - do so with the knowledge and acceptance of those risks. But, our safety and survival is the ultimate measure of success. I don't believe any of us possess the attitude of, "I hope I make".

To achieve any successful outcome requires practice, how much depends on the difficulty and the level of success desired. I flew aerobatics for a number of years, something which required extensive practice - the closer to the ground - the higher the standard of practice.

I NEVER initiated a maneuver without knowing the outcome, and most certainly not by saying, "I hope I make it".

Everything I did, I analyzed - could I have been smoother, should I have been faster/slower, am I drifting, etc, etc, etc.

The point is: I think we are all our own worst critics, and we all strive for some level of perfection. With respect to the video, you can ask yourself what you might have done in that situation, but the only judging allowed is by the participants.

I know there are exceptions, but I don't think any of us start our day by saying, "I hope I get charged by some big, pissed-off animal, hell bent on killing me". But it doesn't mean we don't prepare for the possibility.

In the 5 years I've hunted in Africa, I've experienced 3 charges which required shooting: A wounded cape buffalo coming straight at me - I hit him twice with my double rifle. A bull elephant came out of nowhere and I stopped him at 21 feet with a single frontal brain shot. The most recent - an absolute shit-show with a big, old bull elephant and 4 of his friends in thick trees and heavy brush.

My first shot caught him just off-center - frontal brain, as he was smashing through the trees, he rocked back, spun to his right and I hit him in the shoulder. He continued the turn, spinning completely around and started smashing more trees on his way towards us. I was out, I turned to grab my 458 Lott backup but it had gotten a bit too far away.

The PH's first shot rung out as I turned. My 458 was headed deeper into the brush, I continued my right turn, heard the PH's second shot and broke open my double.

The thick brush made visibility difficult and there were 4 excited elephants running wild around us.

As I completed my turn I saw the big bull start to falter, the PH fired a 3rd shot and yelled at me to shoot again. My 3rd shot hit as he crashed to the ground. Fortunately the other 4 bulls ran off.

I don't need a video to critique and analyze - I can replay it in my mind.

One second I'm standing there watching 5 elephants advance on our position, eating their way closer. The next second trees are cracking, elephants are charging, brush is flying, guns are blazing, and people are running.

I tell myself I could have done better, the PH said I did great.

Our mission - get an elephant, our goal - do it so nobody gets hurt or killed.

Whose place is it to judge?

 

[Aussie_Hunter]

Thomas,
With respect to your opening sentence; it would really depend on several factors - nature of the mission, goal, purpose, perspective, and of course - level of acceptable collateral damage.

We, as westerners value our lives and therefore judge the successful outcome by being alive at the conclusion. But there are many examples to the contrary, the acts of 911, the Kamikaze pilots of WWII, suicide bombers - their level of greatness is measured NOT by their survival, but rather by the resultant damage inflicted.

Is it possible the "fighter pilot who got his ass shot down did great" - absolutely.

Agreed, debriefs have a purpose - they can be an excellent learning/teaching tool. To analyze from the perspective of multiple slow-motion rewinds on your computer is one thing, to judge without being part of the scenario is another.

You imply any fighter pilot who does NOT get their ass shot down has done great. Well, these two fighter pilots did not get their asses shot down, the buffalo did. So, didn't they do great?

Hunting Dangerous Game has inherent risks, and those of us who do - do so with the knowledge and acceptance of those risks. But, our safety and survival is the ultimate measure of success. I don't believe any of us possess the attitude of, "I hope I make".

To achieve any successful outcome requires practice, how much depends on the difficulty and the level of success desired. I flew aerobatics for a number of years, something which required extensive practice - the closer to the ground - the higher the standard of practice.

I NEVER initiated a maneuver without knowing the outcome, and most certainly not by saying, "I hope I make it".

Everything I did, I analyzed - could I have been smoother, should I have been faster/slower, am I drifting, etc, etc, etc.

The point is: I think we are all our own worst critics, and we all strive for some level of perfection. With respect to the video, you can ask yourself what you might have done in that situation, but the only judging allowed is by the participants.

I know there are exceptions, but I don't think any of us start our day by saying, "I hope I get charged by some big, pissed-off animal, hell bent on killing me". But it doesn't mean we don't prepare for the possibility.

In the 5 years I've hunted in Africa, I've experienced 3 charges which required shooting: A wounded cape buffalo coming straight at me - I hit him twice with my double rifle. A bull elephant came out of nowhere and I stopped him at 21 feet with a single frontal brain shot. The most recent - an absolute shit-show with a big, old bull elephant and 4 of his friends in thick trees and heavy brush.

My first shot caught him just off-center - frontal brain, as he was smashing through the trees, he rocked back, spun to his right and I hit him in the shoulder. He continued the turn, spinning completely around and started smashing more trees on his way towards us. I was out, I turned to grab my 458 Lott backup but it had gotten a bit too far away.

The PH's first shot rung out as I turned. My 458 was headed deeper into the brush, I continued my right turn, heard the PH's second shot and broke open my double.

The thick brush made visibility difficult and there were 4 excited elephants running wild around us.

As I completed my turn I saw the big bull start to falter, the PH fired a 3rd shot and yelled at me to shoot again. My 3rd shot hit as he crashed to the ground. Fortunately the other 4 bulls ran off.

I don't need a video to critique and analyze - I can replay it in my mind.

One second I'm standing there watching 5 elephants advance on our position, eating their way closer. The next second trees are cracking, elephants are charging, brush is flying, guns are blazing, and people are running.

I tell myself I could have done better, the PH said I did great.

Our mission - get an elephant, our goal - do it so nobody gets hurt or killed.

Whose place is it to judge?

Couldn't have said it all better myself.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I view that Buffalo hunt as a mortal street fight.
Not two poorly skilled drunks slinging haymakers. But a truly brutal, to the death fight.

Real mortal fights to the death rarely look like the choreographed movie fights. They are sloppy and if the opponents are relatively closely matched can go either way and often come down to some luck.

If this street fight was one on one it may have been a different ending.


To me: The man factor is both stayed in the fight and didn’t panic. I can only hope I would be able to when in that position.

 

[Challer]

That might work ... does it come with a forklift?

Blaser made a double R8…. Just for the undecided!

 

[Flewis]

Can I take a shot at this? I think the client and ph were great. The client stayed cool and in the fight even after his rifle went down. He was in good position all the fight. As cool as he seemed to be I tend to think it was the rifle and not him. Now the ph was if not perfect came with in a RCH of it . The ph’s second shot , you know the one every one thought was a miss by the client seemed to be a shot to break the off shoulder. That I think was too slow the bull down in his turn, which it did. Daring this time the ph was checking the ground around him and reloading. That way he could get space between him and the bull. I also think getting close to the tree was on purpose. Very well done.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I view that Buffalo hunt as a mortal street fight.
Not two poorly skilled drunks slinging haymakers. But a truly brutal, to the death fight.

Real mortal fights to the death rarely look like the choreographed movie fights. They are sloppy and if these opponents are relatively closely matched can go either way and often come down to some luck.

If this street fight was one on one it may have been a different ending.

Thanks!!! Exactly!

"All plans are off after the first shot is fired" is the rule for combat and it seems dangerous game hunting. Toward this, we can indeed learn from this video and others like it. Cape Buffalo are challenging because they can survive from large, powerful projectiles in their vital areas at least long enough to take revenge on the hunting party. They will also hunt the hunters prior to any shooting. And that's why these big cows are dangerous game!

We may watch the video and review for what those persons may have done incorrectly but we were not there. Mistakes may have been made which generated cascading effects. Who among us has led a mistake-free life? Certainly not me! They all survived a large beast trying to kill them. Good job!

 

[Bert the Turtle]

I think all the people asking “could you have done better?”(unless it is a reply to an ad hominem comment) are missing the point of reviewing these videos. The point isn’t to say “I could have done better”. The point is to say “HOW could it be done better?” We learn this by dispassionately observing what was done right as well as what was done wrong

We ask these questions and point out these mistakes not from a sense of arrogance but rather from a sense of humility and appreciation that we are just as flawed as the person we are watching. We know we can and will make mistakes and we are thankful that there are people willing to share their mistakes with the world.

It is unequivocal that the first shot should not have been taken when it was taken. Whether or not the second animal was hit, that shot should have been taken sooner or later. I can say this because I’ve shot two buffalo with one bullet.

We will all make mistakes. Life is easier if we learn to at least try to avoid some of them by learning from the mistakes of others.

 

[Bert the Turtle]

This is a still from a video I watched last night. It is the initial shot on a buffalo that fell to the shot and (predictably) soon got up and ran off. The buffalo was eventually killed from the vehicle as it charged the truck. Nobody was injured.

Afterwards they had the usual talking about the hunt. The shooter said “I hit him well on the shoulder but they are just so tough.” And the PH was shown saying “It was a pretty good shot”

That is not a good shot. I say this not to belittle the shooter. I say this because I care about the next person, whoever that may be (and it may well be the same shooter in the future). Nobody should go afield thinking that is a good place to put the shot. Telling the shooter that it was a pretty good shot may spare feelings at the time, but may cost a life in the future.

 

[Franco]

Thanks!!! Exactly!

"All plans are off after the first shot is fired" is the rule for combat and it seems dangerous game hunting. Toward this, we can indeed learn from this video and others like it. Cape Buffalo are challenging because they can survive from large, powerful projectiles in their vital areas at least long enough to take revenge on the hunting party. They will also hunt the hunters prior to any shooting. And that's why these big cows are dangerous game!

We may watch the video and review for what those persons may have done incorrectly but we were not there. Mistakes may have been made which generated cascading effects. Who among us has led a mistake-free life? Certainly not me! They all survived a large beast trying to kill them. Good job!

We all take pride in our one-shot kills, and boast (deservedly) of those long range assassinations, but nobody gets gored or trampled on the far end of 100 yds. When one of these animals charge - the fight is on.

We train, we practice, we run simulations, we picture ourselves standing triumphantly - the defeated beast collapsed at our feet. But you never really know how you'll handle yourself until it actually happens.

My ordeal with the elephants was anything but smooth, and it was far from perfect - at least my part.

I would love to say, when it was over I just patted myself on the back and congratulated myself for a job well done - just a day like any other.

But, that's not how it went; my heart was pounding in my ears and I was sucking in air like it was going to be illegal any minute. Looking around I tried to take it all in; elephant down, trees down, brush trampled, the PH standing steadfast - staring in my direction, smile on his face.

I was suddenly overcome with the image of Kurt Russel and Val Kilmer at the Gunfight of the OK Corral.

 

[Christian Davis]

View attachment 587874
This is a still from a video I watched last night. It is the initial shot on a buffalo that fell to the shot and (predictably) soon got up and ran off. The buffalo was eventually killed from the vehicle as it charged the truck. Nobody was injured.

Afterwards they had the usual talking about the hunt. The shooter said “I hit him well on the shoulder but they are just so tough.” And the PH was shown saying “It was a pretty good shot”

That is not a good shot. I say this not to belittle the shooter. I say this because I care about the next person, whoever that may be (and it may well be the same shooter in the future). Nobody should go afield thinking that is a good place to put the shot. Telling the shooter that it was a pretty good shot may spare feelings at the time, but may cost a life in the future.

I saw this too and thought exactly the same thing. I think it must be very hard for PH's guiding celebrity clients. Also, I'm interested to hear opinions about following up a wounded buffalo from the back of a truck.

 

[poco]

I saw this too and thought exactly the same thing. I think it must be very hard for PH's guiding celebrity clients. Also, I'm interested to hear opinions about following up a wounded buffalo from the back of a truck.

I watched the video
shot was high front of shoulder and didn’t look like it broke anything ( ?)
416 ruger , dgx bullet
the follow up shots had 2-3 missed shots while leading the bull on the charge

following up a wounded animal from a truck in tall grass and brush is ok in my book
after all a dead animal ( nobody in the hospital) is the end game .
celebrity & video hunting makes it a different game, longer shooting, camera footage, ect.
breaking shoulder blades and lunges/ heart or spinal tap should be the objective on 1st volleys imo

 

[Monski]

I thought the first shot was too high also. I've been wondering why the bull dropped at all initially. Maybe why the PH said it was a good shot. Speculating that maybe it nicked a bony outer part of a vertebra and caused a temporary nerve shock?