Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa 270 WSM on Plains Game?

I guess I'll pass along a few observations from my limited experience - two hunts in Zim and two in Namibia. The rifles taken on these hunts were a Sako 375 H&H and a Weatherby Mark V in 270 WMag.

The 375 did most of the work in the first Zim trip (buff, sable, etc.), but when I continued on to Namibia, the PH made it plain he much preferred a 300 mag to the Weatherby and thought I'd be better off with the Sako. We took both along the first day, and I had the 270WM in hand when we spotted a fine kudu - I put a 150gr Nosler into the sticking-point and the animal didn't go 100 feet. Next came a gemsbok, a couple of springbok and a warthog, clean kills all. We later set up for a leopard and the PH agreed I should use the 270WM as he could see I could make it work. (No leopard showed.)

On a subsequent hunt in Zim, I shot a big zebra with the 375, using soft points intended for leopard. The bullet angled in about a foot behind his armpit and made a mess of the left lung right above the heart, tearing a big entrance wound and exiting from the brisket. He took off and I shot him again on the run, hitting him amidships. We finally got up onto him standing and I hit him again, finally toppling him. The point here is that this zebra took a good hit that caused a lot of bright bleeding and it took two more and a lot of tracking to put him away. Love it our not, I would not ever try to take a zebra with the 270WM, but for anything any less tough it works, as should the 270WSM.

Just for the sake of discussion and to help me understand, which North American animal has a two chambered or lobe lung? I've haven't noticed the topic even come up at home but it seems to be common knowledge in Africa. I believe that you can kill anything that you hit solidly with practically anything, but I have never heard a North American talk about front and back lungs. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but I haven't seen it either. There may be some difference between the biology of deer and antelope?

Although not a scientific or legal description, I have seen some differences that I think do stand up to discussion, or at least some further thought.

For starters, many of the animals in Africa live in herds. When a single herd animal spooks and runs the whole heard will at the same instant. They don't perk up to see if it's the idiot of the group that is just being stupid again, they trust even the most insecure and jumpy member of the herd when it spooks. This results in the whole group bolting through the bush to crash through branches and trees somewhat blindly.

Would anyone debate the will to live difference between a cape buffalo and a North American Bison? I've seen some rather unruley and wild bison, but they are the exception, buffalo are almost all living on the edge!

Take for example wildebeest, zebra, gemsbok for example. These are argueably the tougher PG species to flatten, and the tougher ones to stop once hit and running off. These animals have very thick rubber like skin. It's far more elastic then an Elk, Deer, Bear, sheep, etc.

Why is that? My opinion is that it's due to the kinds of trees, and the habit of running blind with the herd. The species of thorn trees, and the frequency of these herd animals crashing through the bush may have caused them over 1000's of years to develop this skin that will seal up punctures, or be more resistive of punctures. Giraffe is clearly designed this way. Once you have skinned the chest of a Giraffe and seen that 3-4" thick "cartilage like" skin with Acacia thorns embedded into it you can see why!

There is a desire stronger then life itself for many of these herd animals that they can never be left behind the group. Compare this to the soft, and quite fragile Kudu. An animal this big yet so easy to kill, and so little will to live. Kudu have very soft skin, and are built very frail when compared to heard animals.

A Kudu, much like a whitetail deer will carefully pick and choose it's path through the bush, often not making much noise and they vanish like a ghost. Wildebeest crash through everything in the way letting you hear them depart for a 100 yards or until out of earshot!

Is it simply coincidence that the crashing herd mentality wildebeast is so much harder to fold and follow up then the soft lone fragile pick the path Kudu bull? I think not.

There are always these comments about African Game being harder to kill. Maybe that's not 100% true, however they are absolutley harder to find dead. Finding a single elk, deer, bear, or sheep is a much less difficult undertaking then finding an equally hit African animal that lives in a herd.

As I was taught in school, read the whole page not just the first word. There is much more to this puzzle then simply saying African game is tougher then North American game. A poorly hit lone Bull elk is a tough animal that can travel a hella long way. They also live in a habitat with so much natural ground litter and rock that follow ups can be complicated. Mountain goats and moose are also quite difficult to make die and drop.

Just the blanket statement here is not realistic. There are some very tough species in both places. However having hunted for my living in both places, and seen quite a number of animals harvested in both places. Well I've struggled more to find well hit game in Africa, then I have in North America. There are however lots more species there as well. The debate will never be apples and apples, it would be better to just pick a specific animal your interested in comparing.

JJHack,
The African buffalo also has a two chambered lung, whereas the bison does not. That could also explain why cape buffalo can stay on their feet so long. You can hit them through the lungs and they still have much of their breathing equipment intact.It makes sense to me, but I'm not doctor.