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

Sport hunting must involve two things, at least for me. 1. There has to be a confrontation with the beast. 2. The beast must have an opportunity to beat me.

The animal's senses must give it a chance to outmaneuver me and escape. My biggest thrills and challenges have been when things get up close.

Much of this "long range hunting" is way too abstract and so removed there is no confrontation. It reminds me of a video game where the are two boxers. No risk of loss...no skin in the game.

Once I went to a school to learn to fight with knives. You stood within feet of your opponent. Both of us used marking pens rather than blades. Man it gave me a new view of men who went to battle with swords and axes. Scared the hell out of me but was exhilarating as well.

This long distance stuff is more like a game built on technology. Are the warriors who fought toe to toe with swords the same "warriors" who sit in bunkers in the Nevada and kill someone in Asia by piloting a drone? I think not. The latter may be necessary but it is not the same as real combat.

I'll just add that Don Heath has earned the right to his opinions. He's not only a highly trained wildlife biologist who's worked in the field, but has served extensively as a PH and as a teacher in Zimbabwe's highly-respected PH school. In fact as I recall he was head of the school for many years, and is now a contultant for a major ammo and bullet company, among many things. Between his guiding and some of the necessary culling of big game done by the Zimbabwe game department, his experience is vast, and his perspective interesting, since it also includes considerable original research into the history of African hunting. His comments in the article are also on African safari hunters, not anything else.

If some American hunter has different opinions, why that's their obvious right. But anybody who finds "Ganyana's" writing substandard or irrelevant is obviously not interested in anything beyond their own limited perspective, but that's true of not only many hunters but many humans.

I've met Don on several instances and he is indeed a great individual and he knows his stuff. The PH school John speaks about is without question, the most rigorous in the industry and I'll also add that besides being an accomplished PH and author, he is a rifle and bullet loonie as well!

Well said

Excellent points.

I'm gonna try and broadsword a mulie this year.

"THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"



Travis

I would add that most places in Zimbabwe (Zambia and Southern Tanzania are somewhat similar) have vegetation often referred to as thornbrush. This would include Mopane and Miombo woodlands. In practical terms this means there are few places where a 350+ yard shot is a possibility. Most animals are shot at less than 100 yards and not uncommonly through holes in the vegetation.

This might have something to do with Mr Heath's comments. I realize that in other countries like South Africa and Namibia there are very open areas where long shots might be useful.

To me these make more sense.

As has been pointed out, modern premiums create a "high tide effect" increasing the effectiveness of ALL cartridges. 'Standard' is vague I know, but most will know what is meant... 270/280/7RM/308/30-06...

I have witnessed hunters who had no business taking shots at game farther than the end of their barrel. Point of #2 ought to be, IMHO, along the lines of the classic, "a man's gotta know his limitations." For instance, I have no doubt that Darrel Holland can make an ethical hit at longer distances than me, whether all things are equal or not.

I have also witnessed hunters who had no business taking shots at game farther away than the end of the barrel who thought that a mag, super, or UBBER mag, could remedy the issue. That is to say, I have no doubt that #3 is true.

All that having been said, the author cited in the OP has a lot more credibility than I do in making such proclamations.

And too many American hunters seldom get off the bench.

Ain't that the truth!

Your rewording of #2 would make it tough on a new hunter.

Not necessarily. A new hunter should practice killing targets first, anyway.

Too many of them seldom get off the couch as well.

Well I don't personally know the fellow and I'll take you word he is a swell fella, but if he is stymied by a 400yd shot I would not consider him much of an authority on rifles nor bullets.

Don also happens to be a pretty formidable shot with both handguns and rifles and is one of the top competitive handgun shooters in Zimbabwe.

I am a huge 270 fan, but fully realize that premium bullets have raised the bar on all cartridges.

John,

If you'd read the article, you'd find he frequently shoots beyond 350 yards--or meters, since he uses both in the article, which may or may not be due to editing by someone else. But he shoot baboons beyond 350 y/m, and since baboons atre even spookier than coyotes after they've been shot at, and normally run in groups, I would bet he's pretty good.

CRS,

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he specifically mentioned the .270 because so many Americans think it's too small for plains game, having been brainwashed by too many American gun writers over the decades.

He also specifically mentions what premium bullets have done for the .30-06, and also that the .243 Winchester is very popular among African hunters for plains game up to and including kudu.

I always love these long threads that dissect magazine articles few posters have even read. usually they begin just like this one, with somebody quoting a little of it, or even summarizing a 2500-word article in two sentences. Immediately a bunch of people try to rip it apart, despite never reading the damn thing.

In fact that's why I first posted many years ago, after lurking for six months. Somebody summarized one of my articles inaccurately, though he liked it, and of course the pile-on began. I posted a reply, suggesting the pilers actually read the article, and providing some specific reason. Somebody figured out exactly why I knew so much about the article, and now I've been reading the same sort of thing for 13 years.

My only point was that the unequivocal ""If something is more than 350 yards away, I contend no one has any ethical business shooting unless the game is wounded." statement. If he made it, is not something a knowledgeable rifle shooter would state.

It really is no different than some newbie LR shooter saying a 500yd shot is a chip shot and anyone who can't make that shot is a poor shooter.

Both types of statements pretend that distance is the only factor in any shot and every 350yd shot or every 500yd shot is the same regardless of shooter skill, equipment, shooting conditions or the time for the shot. I have passed a bunch of shoots inside 350yds due to factors that had nothing to do with the distance and it is the mark of the inexperienced marksman to think distance is the end all and be all of shooting. I would much rather have plenty of time and good conditions at 400yds than time pressure and a 40 MPH wind at 250yds.

I have seen way more bad shooting due to time pressure than distance. I reckon it is possible to teach a monkey to hit at 400yds with good equipment and lots of time but few and far between are hunters who can, on demand, hit quickly under pressure.



Actually you are dramatically mischaracterizing Jim Zumbo's statements. Jim actually said the AR-15 was a "terrorist rifle" and "I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods ". I am pretty sure the past few years have shown the stupidity of those statements. Trying to change history to make a point does none of us any good.



JB,

I was simply commenting on the OPs quotes. I have not read the article. If the OP misquoted the article then take my comments to be directed at the OP.

He didn't misquote anything. But you might want to read the article anyway.