Thought Provoking Question: How Many Of You Would Use A Smaller Calibre If It Were Legal?

[Hank2211]

@Major Khan, a very interesting question.

Speaking only for myself, I don't expect I would go with a smaller calibre than I would otherwise use, if it were legal, for two reasons.

The first reason is entirely emotional. I have wonderful rifles in .416 Rigby, .404 Jeffery and .375 H&H. I really enjoy shooting such classical calibres in the field, so I wouldn't go to something smaller just because I could. I should mention I also have a very nice Rigby .275, so I have a reasonable option, but for larger game, I enjoy bringing out the bigger guns, so to speak.

My second reason is practical and based on my own experience. Like many here, I have hunted dangerous game and I have seen the impact of my own shots as well as those of others with whom I have hunted. I have no doubt that you can kill a lion with a .275 and indeed an elephant (WMD Bell certainly proved that, if it needed proving). But I have seen the impact that a .416 makes on an elephant, for example, as compared to even a .375, and I would say that 33% more lead makes a meaningful difference. Comparing 400 grain .416's to a 185 grain .300 Win Mag and the difference becomes even greater. The larger calibers initially hit harder (much harder in most cases) and the impact of that shock on any animal is not to be underestimated. For example, I believe a .275 will handily make its way to a lion's heart and kill him. But the larger calibre may well plant him long enough that you can get off a second shot, if need be, rather than face a charging animal which doesn't yet know he is dead. I have been charged by a wounded leopard, and have no desire to repeat the experience with a lion.

The larger and more powerful bullets will also give more margin of error, so that if an initial shot is less than perfect, or a bone is in the way of a vital organ, be it brain, lungs or heart, you can smash through the obstacle and still make a killing shot. For those who insist on being sceptical, I cannot prove this - I have never run a controlled test, on two living animals of identical size and weight, side by side, to be able to demonstrate conclusively the impact of two shots of different calibres, at exactly the same distance, at exactly the same place. But my experience is enough for me.

I would not take this to extremes, at least not for myself. I have fired a .458 Lott, as well as a .450 Rigby, and frankly I did not enjoy them as much as I had hoped I would! The lower .400's give me plenty of margin for error and allow me to be a more ethical hunter, I believe. That is what I'm after, so I will stick with those calibres.

 

[spike.t]

Two different scenarios.... For actual hunting and first shot then yes have used smaller calibres with no issues.. but will take the 5th as they say in usa on that subject as that's what I had on me at the time... For following up then nope.... 458. Lott ...470 ..500 Ne or 500 Jeffery...whichever the person is happy with...

But an ele with a 275 rigby ....yup would love to do that......

 

[Newboomer]

What an intriguing question. Having only killed one buffalo (375HH and 350gr barnes TSX), I have limited experience with dg but from that experience I can see the merits of minimum caliber. I am a fan of heavy for caliber loads. The bigger it is, the harder it will hit.

As for governing what that minimum should be, I don't necessarily agree with what a caliber alone should be. I think it should be based on animal size and/or weight. Certain calibers for certain weight/size ranges. There is abundant research to determine what is appropriate. I agree with setting 375HH as minimum for elephant and others in that weight/size range. As for buffalo and below, I believe a 9.3x62 is fine. There is very little ballistic difference between it and the 375HH. However, I do believe the 9.3x62 should be absolute minimum for any dg---to be safe(r) and assure cleaner kills.

Another criteria might be muzzle energy. Set a certain level for certain species. If a caliber can acquire the necessary mv, it is legal. Setting minimum levels in anything can be problematic. It is very subjective and one person's opinion can and will differ from others as evidenced by this thread. Practical, in the bush, experience is probably the most realistic determining factor.

 

[375Fox]

I think minimum calibers are very arbitrary. I think as others have said energy is a better choice. My 375 H&H is one of my favorite rifles, so personally my answer is no, but if I was given a choice of a 300 with a quality bullet (such as Swift A frame or Barnes) vs a 375 with a poor bullet choice (such as federal power shok), I would want to choose the smaller caliber with a quality bullet.

 

[Hank2211]

I think -but stand to be corrected - that most African countries which specify a caliber also specify a minimum energy threshold.

 

[Hogpatrol]

From a small caliber guy with no dog in this hunt, for DG, I'd use the largest cartridge, shooting the heaviest bullet I can accurately and comfortably shoot. Having said that, if I couldn't shoot the minimum, I'd be satisfied with what I could hunt and beg off the bad guys.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I have not had the privilege of hunting dangerous game, that being said I believe the .340 weatherby punches above its weight class.

 

[Tanks]

"Use enough gun", that is my mantra in this type of discussion. Coupled with that is to be competent with the said gun.

A lot can happen in a hunt. The quarry can move just as you are pressing the trigger. I sure as heck wouldn't want a follow up rear quartering shot on a buffalo with a .308. or try to stop a charge

Then again, I have no calibers between .308 and .375 then go .416 .458, .500 and .510 in bullet diameters.

The following are my "practice" bullets for an upcoming hunt, CEB just delivered the batch that I will actually load for the hunt.

.458 Caliber Bullets

• Tanks
• Apr 8, 2020
• 1

 

[K-man]

In today's Africa, with usually a couple of trackers and a P.H. also, and the sometimes smaller properties we have a responsibility to kill quickly and so the larger calibers are necessary.
In the Africa of old, when Selous and others who were mostly alone or just had a single person around, the smaller calibers will kill but may require more time and therefore more danger. So the short answer, No.

 

[Tanks]

In today's Africa, with usually a couple of trackers and a P.H. also, and the sometimes smaller properties we have a responsibility to kill quickly and so the larger calibers are necessary.

... So the short answer, No.

The other thing to consider is that sometimes you are pretty close to a National Park. If you wound the animal even if it is going to expire eventually, once it goes into the park you can not follow it in.

 

[chashardy]

The question is, "if it were legal, would I use a smaller caliber?" My answer is no. Our obligation as hunters is to ethically and swiftly dispatch the animal with as little suffering as possible. Even the best hunter can miss by a few inches and seriously wound the animal, and aside from the suffering of the animal, the hunter and his PH and tracker are now at risk of a wounded buffalo, lion, leopard, etc. And, if you don't recover a wounded animal, you still bought it.
I'm a firm believer in the old adage: "Use plenty of gun." If you are recoil shy or not comfortable with a big bore rifle, then practice and get comfortable before stalking dangerous game.

 

[Tanks]

I'm a firm believer in the old adage: "Use plenty of gun." If you are recoil shy or not comfortable with a big bore rifle, then practice and get comfortable before stalking dangerous game.

Words to live by.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot a buffalo with my .338WM with a good 250gr bullet at 75 meters or less. But, I’d rather shoot one with my .458WM or Lott? Go big or go to Texas! Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[Tbitty]

I do not have any experience with DG, so this is only my novice opinion.

Modern ammunition is FAR superior to what existed and was used in the past. These advancements allow smaller calibers to out perform the "minimum requirements" around which rules were developed and adopted. As such, there is no reason that I would not be willing to use a smaller caliber, within proper parameters of capability.

First and foremost, the selection needs to be up to the task, with a reasonable margin for error. You cannot count on perfect conditions nor perfect shot placement and the example of the client being killed while using a .220 Swift is exactly what can go wrong with theoretical capability; it *could* do the job, but puts you in a bad position if/when it comes up short.

Beyond that, the shooter is the generally the weakest link. Experience, fatigue, situation, conditions, and, ultimately, shot placement contribute to the ability of a bullet to do its job or not. If you've selected the right bullet and gun, and do your job reasonably well, then the end result should be the same regardless of using a .243 or a .500 Jeffrey (game animal dependent). But I can guarantee the .375 or .416 or .500 will do it much better for DG.

I'll wrap up by using a version of one of my favorite quotes from Jurassic Park: "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should." ... Some use small calibers to prove they can, or to challenge themselves, but most should select a caliber that is "universally accepted" as being up to the task.

 

[Newboomer]

Here is an example of something not going exactly according to plan: The day I got my buf we were driving back to the lodge when Lammie, my PH, who was riding in the back of the truck with me, suddenly pounded on the roof of the truck and hollered at the driver. He had just seen a great sable off in the bush. We were planning on hunting sable the next day.

Out of the truck and on a circle stalk we went. We went wide and came up behind him standing under a tree. Since we were on our way back to the lodge, I hadn't had time to change cartridges in my 375HH. I was still loaded with Barnes 350 gr TSXs from shooting my buf.

We carefully crept closer, taking advantage of what little brush offered concealment, until we ran out of brush at about 100 yards. Lammie set the sticks and just as I started squeezing the trigger the sable turned away from us. My shot hit him quartering away just ahead of the left hind leg and exited just ahead of the right front leg. Thanks to big heavy bullet, it did some damage to lungs but he still ran a good quarter mile. We found him piled up under a tree.

Just a slight movement like that can spell the difference between a trophy and a lost animal. I think that was a case for not being overgunned. If I had switched rifles after lunch and carried my 7RM with Barnes 160gr TSXs this might be a totally different story. Use enough gun for the intended quarry. A little bigger is better than not enough which emphasizes the fact that the 375HH is the right gun for anything.

 

[Alaska Luke]

Interesting. I don't have African experience yet. A lot of guys hunt big bears with 300s and 338s so I'm sure they could work on a lion. I have heard a few more experienced hunters make the argument that the greater frontal area of the 375 makes for a better stopper then a 338. I don't know enough to say.

I wonder what the Aussie hunters think. Aren't they able to hunt water buffalo with smaller cartridges? Would that be comparable to a Cape buffalo?

 

[318AE]

It’s a great question. My short answer is “yes”.

I don’t think there is one number that summarizes a bullet’s terminal performance on game. Sectional density and penetration are perhaps most important for a well placed shot. Caliber determines some legal minimums, and may have the greatest impact on blood trail.

As others have pointed out, many smaller catridges such as the 318 WR, 333 Jeffery, 350 Rigby Magnum and others were successfully used ahead of these restrictions. Their lack of success may have been a big part of the reason for these restrictions.

The quality of bullets today is much higher than it was when these restrictions were put in place. I think today a high quality, premium 250 grain 33/333/338/358 caliber bullet at ~2,400 fps would work very well for buffalo. I’ve even considered hunting again in Mozambique, where just such a proposition is legal.

Work hard for the right shot, and only pull the trigger when you’re confident. You can’t pull the bullet back once fired.

 

[Tanks]

...

I wonder what the Aussie hunters think. Aren't they able to hunt water buffalo with smaller cartridges? Would that be comparable to a Cape buffalo?

The only Aussie PH I know also uses the .500 MDM wildcat that I use shooting Cutting Edge bullets. Cape Buffalo are dwarfed in size by the water buffalo though not in ferocity. There was a cull hunt in Australia a few years ago where guys shot 15-20+ buffalo each. I think the smallest caliber was .416 B&M and that was used for bullet testing purposes.

Here is a video of that effort where they shot a couple of cows for testing.

 

[mark-hunter]

The question that comes to mind is following:

If we consider modern international trophy hunter, with all the guns and calibers at disposal to him, travelling to Africa to hunt biggest and most dangerous animals, why he would choose a rifle in inferior caliber?
What would be a reason for that? (I am sure it happens, the question is why?)

 

[Tanks]

My theory is two parts. First is a lot of people are afraid of recoil without trying bigger calibers. Secondly, when they come to forums like this people beat on them saying all they need is a .375H&H max and it is good for whatever walks this Earth. ( /wave @Red Leg )

In just two threads today I have heard people disparaging hunters with bigger caliber rifles and how they would not be able to hit the right side of the barn, embarrass themselves etc., etc.. People hear something over and over again and they begin to believe it.