Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ganyana on Rifle Power

One off wonder shots don't prove much over time. We have all had those.

Just like JB always says, men can't kill big game with light rifles, but women and children can��..

I used to cull a lot, read that as thousands of animals, particularly when reviewing rifles where my habit was to develop loads at the range and then take the rifle to the bush.

In a great many side by side tests you don;t see a terrible lot of difference between various cartridges, particularly on deer sized feral animals but one trip in particular stood out in my memory and that was when I was clearing the shelves of old handloads and factory ammo that had been provided for review.

Some factory loads are several hundred fps below handloading capability and on this particular trip I noticed that the .30/05 killed very uniformly which was gaged by the % of animals stopped in their tracks either dead or incapacitated and unable to move further.

Some of the loads were pathetic such as 150gn loads at around 2600fps MV in the '06 but still worked as well as the .270 with warmer loads. I put that down to a caliber advantage as being more demonstrable than the velocity aspect when directed similarly.

Obviously bullet choices make a difference but I am averaging out results which I think is a more independent way of assessing differences. One off wonder shots don't prove much over time. We have all had those.

I used the .270 a lot since the 70's and never used the .30/06 until the late 80's as I was firmly in the Magnum Mania Phase, still am, with some cartridges.

My current .30/06 is fast dying with the barrel shot out. It has taken an awful lot of animals and developed a lot of handloads but it will be re-barreled with another .30/06 tube I have on hand in the not so distant future.

Ross made his living as a writer and if you happened to read his articles over the years you saw many contradictions as he also wrote glowing things about various magnum rifles and seemed particularly fond of the 340 Wby.

Don Heath, "Ganyana", on the other hand not only reports on his extensive experience, but also addresses documented experiences of many others.

It is funny how number 1 is so written in stone, and the next two use weasel words like "I contend" and "ethical" and "Too Many"

Well I contend the ethical limit is 378 yards, and just enough clients show up under gunned and over practiced.

So what does he recommend for people who want to afford to practice and therefore want a round that works with cup and core bullets? Because I contend the cost of premium bullets is a huge factor in the lack of practice.

I read his stuff before and it is really second rate.

No issues friend... I use both cartridges. I was curious what your negative 270 experience was.

Good point. With the variety of bullets available in any, at least somewhat common caliber, any half capable handloader can stretch a cartridge both up and down the spectrum of game size. I shoot small game with specialty loads in a .350RM. Several here shoot deer with specialty loads in .223R. Is a cartridge really an ideal choice for the game if it can only perform well with a specialty load?

I guess that I don't consider a cartridge ideal for a given game unless the guy that doesn't handload can go buy a standard grade box of factory ammo in the right bullet weight and have it be a reliable and humane round with which to take the game. The plus for the handloader is that these 'ideal' cartridges work well with plain and cheap Hornady and Speer bullets.

This just appeared in the latest SUCCESSFUL HUNTER. Written by a very well respected and experienced African PH. Finally, someone willing to state the obvious.

1. "Modern premium bullets make the 270 Winchester into the all-around plains game cartridge."

2. "If something is more than 350 yards away, I contend no one has any ethical business shooting unless the game is wounded."

3. Too many clients are arriving overgunned and under practiced.

That is a great way to look at it, standard ammo, not premium ammo, is the real word way to judge a cartridge.

Why is that?

There was a popular writer who, a few years ago, stated that the M16/AR type rifle was not much of a hunting rifle as far as he was concerned. He was vilified, crucified, and lost his way of making a living. He was accused of being anti-gun.

I doubt if any single professional writer, who is also a hunter, will ever criticize the "long-range hunting" thing, for fear of a vocal minority backlash. The interest in long range shooting is driving profit margins for the entire rifle shooting industry. The statistics show that there are very few new "hunters" but many new "shooters". The new shooters, who account for over 80% of new buyers, are gearing up for long-range and are buying AR's along with iPhones. Both are potent consumer symbols.

I am all for this new interest in shooting. A marketing manager for a large company recently told me that few of those shooters will ever hunt. They go out and shoot at things a long ways away. This tactical long range stuff is the source of big profit margins and growth, along with the AR's.

However, I am with Mr. Heath. Long range shooting at game is not hunting. Baseball and golf are great games because of the rules not despite them.

I will say this, I don't think that well-heeled sportsmen hunting in Africa are necessarily a good representation of the typical American hunter. Maybe it is just a regional thing but virtually every hunter I know practices for a 300-400 yd shot and expects to have to take one. You can usually get closer but for someone to blatantly state that it is unethical to shoot beyond 350 yards turns me off. Maybe shooting elephants and buffalo beyond 350 yards is unethical but where do we draw the line? Is it unethical to shoot an unwounded woodchuck at 500 yards? Maybe African game is afforded higher life status than American game.

I don't doubt that many shooters show up over gunned and under practiced however.